Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why arent all primaries held on the same day?

Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 2:36:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election?

It helps widdle out the weaker inferior candidates who are running for office. Having the primaries all at once would split the vote in so many ways that a complete moron could end up winning just because everyone else preferred a different candidate.

I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote?

No. Politicians are stubborn little sh*ts who really need to see the writing on the wall that no one likes them before they decide to drop out.

Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

^ That is the admitted downside to the primary system, though it would help to rotate which states go first at the start of every primary if that became the new rules
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:37:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 2:36:26 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election?

It helps widdle out the weaker inferior candidates who are running for office. Having the primaries all at once would split the vote in so many ways that a complete moron could end up winning just because everyone else preferred a different candidate.

Interesting. Couldent people just rank all the candidates in order with the first round eliminating the least popular candidate in terms of first picks with that candidates supporters second choice used instead? This would stop a moron with a small group of supporters winning as if everyone else hated them they could rate them as last on their list of preferred candidate. It's also ironic that despite being designed to stop unpopular morons trump is leading the republican contest!

I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote?

No. Politicians are stubborn little sh*ts who really need to see the writing on the wall that no one likes them before they decide to drop out.

True.

Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

^ That is the admitted downside to the primary system, though it would help to rotate which states go first at the start of every primary if that became the new rules

That would be a good idea. I would imagine the last to vote states are annoyed by the current system.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:39:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 2:36:26 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election?

It helps widdle out the weaker inferior candidates who are running for office. Having the primaries all at once would split the vote in so many ways that a complete moron could end up winning just because everyone else preferred a different candidate.

I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote?

No. Politicians are stubborn little sh*ts who really need to see the writing on the wall that no one likes them before they decide to drop out.

Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

^ That is the admitted downside to the primary system, though it would help to rotate which states go first at the start of every primary if that became the new rules

Forgot to mention that my proposed system would continue until one candidate had 50% of the vote.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:42:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

It ensures that ethanol subsidies are never abandoned.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:52:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:42:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

It ensures that ethanol subsidies are never abandoned.

Not a bad answer.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:55:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:42:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

It ensures that ethanol subsidies are never abandoned.

No idea what thay means!?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:56:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

Look. While it seems silly, it is a very long vetting process. We start with some number in each party (RNC has been prone to clown cars stuffed full in recent years) and work down to a couple, then one per party.

Each state gets more real attention when they are NOT all done on the same day. This insures that (like said above) Iowans get their ethanol issue talked to. Another state that cares about... border fences, they get their issue concentrated on.

Its a big country. We need stuff like this to insure that California and the east cost are not the only places a politician panders to.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 4:57:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:55:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:42:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

It ensures that ethanol subsidies are never abandoned.

No idea what thay means!?

Iowa is the first state. They grow a lot of corn. So EVERYONE has to pander to the corn lobby in Iowa and promise to preserve the ethanol subsidies which prop corn prices up.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 5:01:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:57:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:55:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:42:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

It ensures that ethanol subsidies are never abandoned.

No idea what thay means!?

Iowa is the first state. They grow a lot of corn. So EVERYONE has to pander to the corn lobby in Iowa and promise to preserve the ethanol subsidies which prop corn prices up.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

Trump clearly knows what he's doing.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 5:05:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 5:01:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:57:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:55:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:42:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

It ensures that ethanol subsidies are never abandoned.

No idea what thay means!?

Iowa is the first state. They grow a lot of corn. So EVERYONE has to pander to the corn lobby in Iowa and promise to preserve the ethanol subsidies which prop corn prices up.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...

Trump clearly knows what he's doing.

C E N T I P E D E
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 5:30:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.

To eliminate the issue of someone winning on 20% of the vote you could rank candidates in order from 1-10 or however many are running. You could eliminate the person with the least first choice picks in round one. Then you could take the second choice of people voting for the candidate that has dropped out apply that vote to the second round. Keep doing this until 1 candidate has 50%.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 5:31:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:57:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:55:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:42:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

It ensures that ethanol subsidies are never abandoned.

No idea what thay means!?

Iowa is the first state. They grow a lot of corn. So EVERYONE has to pander to the corn lobby in Iowa and promise to preserve the ethanol subsidies which prop corn prices up.

That does not make the system sound great! Iowa farmers must love it though!
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 5:59:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 5:30:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.

To eliminate the issue of someone winning on 20% of the vote you could rank candidates in order from 1-10 or however many are running. You could eliminate the person with the least first choice picks in round one. Then you could take the second choice of people voting for the candidate that has dropped out apply that vote to the second round. Keep doing this until 1 candidate has 50%.

Instant runoff voting is not a bad idea, although there are two problems with it that come to mind. First, expecting voters to be able to rank 15 candidates is not really realistic. Knowing whether you prefer candidate A or candidate B without ever seeing them go head to head is sometimes pretty hard, and in a race with 15 candidates running all at once, interactions between those two candidates could be pretty rare (or superficial). Second, the current system ensures that the candidates with the greatest support (and thus the greatest chance of winning) receive the most air time, because they stay in the race longer and thus participate in more debates, etc. If all the primaries were held on the same day, then the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between, say, Rubio and Cruz would be the same as the the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between Paul and Fiorina, which is a miallocation of resources in my opinion.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 6:07:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 5:59:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:30:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.

To eliminate the issue of someone winning on 20% of the vote you could rank candidates in order from 1-10 or however many are running. You could eliminate the person with the least first choice picks in round one. Then you could take the second choice of people voting for the candidate that has dropped out apply that vote to the second round. Keep doing this until 1 candidate has 50%.

Instant runoff voting is not a bad idea, although there are two problems with it that come to mind. First, expecting voters to be able to rank 15 candidates is not really realistic. Knowing whether you prefer candidate A or candidate B without ever seeing them go head to head is sometimes pretty hard, and in a race with 15 candidates running all at once, interactions between those two candidates could be pretty rare (or superficial). Second, the current system ensures that the candidates with the greatest support (and thus the greatest chance of winning) receive the most air time, because they stay in the race longer and thus participate in more debates, etc. If all the primaries were held on the same day, then the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between, say, Rubio and Cruz would be the same as the the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between Paul and Fiorina, which is a miallocation of resources in my opinion.

Fair enough. I'm not saying the current system is totally wrong but to outsiders it seems a strange system. How was it first contrived? It seems strange how some states get to vote early, some individually while others on the same days as other states and later. It seems quite an advantage to the citizens of single day states and early states.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 6:14:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 6:07:41 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:59:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:30:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.

To eliminate the issue of someone winning on 20% of the vote you could rank candidates in order from 1-10 or however many are running. You could eliminate the person with the least first choice picks in round one. Then you could take the second choice of people voting for the candidate that has dropped out apply that vote to the second round. Keep doing this until 1 candidate has 50%.

Instant runoff voting is not a bad idea, although there are two problems with it that come to mind. First, expecting voters to be able to rank 15 candidates is not really realistic. Knowing whether you prefer candidate A or candidate B without ever seeing them go head to head is sometimes pretty hard, and in a race with 15 candidates running all at once, interactions between those two candidates could be pretty rare (or superficial). Second, the current system ensures that the candidates with the greatest support (and thus the greatest chance of winning) receive the most air time, because they stay in the race longer and thus participate in more debates, etc. If all the primaries were held on the same day, then the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between, say, Rubio and Cruz would be the same as the the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between Paul and Fiorina, which is a miallocation of resources in my opinion.

Fair enough. I'm not saying the current system is totally wrong but to outsiders it seems a strange system. How was it first contrived? It seems strange how some states get to vote early, some individually while others on the same days as other states and later. It seems quite an advantage to the citizens of single day states and early states.

Pretty sure it goes back to the days when the states were far more independent than they are today, so they all just did their own thing. At one point, the United States was plural (the United States are...).
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 6:20:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 6:14:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/3/2016 6:07:41 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:59:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:30:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.

To eliminate the issue of someone winning on 20% of the vote you could rank candidates in order from 1-10 or however many are running. You could eliminate the person with the least first choice picks in round one. Then you could take the second choice of people voting for the candidate that has dropped out apply that vote to the second round. Keep doing this until 1 candidate has 50%.

Instant runoff voting is not a bad idea, although there are two problems with it that come to mind. First, expecting voters to be able to rank 15 candidates is not really realistic. Knowing whether you prefer candidate A or candidate B without ever seeing them go head to head is sometimes pretty hard, and in a race with 15 candidates running all at once, interactions between those two candidates could be pretty rare (or superficial). Second, the current system ensures that the candidates with the greatest support (and thus the greatest chance of winning) receive the most air time, because they stay in the race longer and thus participate in more debates, etc. If all the primaries were held on the same day, then the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between, say, Rubio and Cruz would be the same as the the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between Paul and Fiorina, which is a miallocation of resources in my opinion.

Fair enough. I'm not saying the current system is totally wrong but to outsiders it seems a strange system. How was it first contrived? It seems strange how some states get to vote early, some individually while others on the same days as other states and later. It seems quite an advantage to the citizens of single day states and early states.

Pretty sure it goes back to the days when the states were far more independent than they are today, so they all just did their own thing. At one point, the United States was plural (the United States are...).

No, not really. Not that long ago, it was the party bosses that choose the candidates, not direct elections.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 6:21:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 4:37:43 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:36:26 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election?

It helps widdle out the weaker inferior candidates who are running for office. Having the primaries all at once would split the vote in so many ways that a complete moron could end up winning just because everyone else preferred a different candidate.

Interesting. Couldent people just rank all the candidates in order with the first round eliminating the least popular candidate in terms of first picks with that candidates supporters second choice used instead?

That would work assuming that the states would be able to then calculate who won as candidates are eliminated from the ballot. Some states still have problems counting votes bewteen just TWO candidates, so upping it to twenty and then have them reshuffle the vote 19 times could easily lead to problems and possible fraud.

plus I dont think voters would really be able to correctly rank 20 candidates in order of preference since the average voter knows a good amount only of three or four candidates. People could rank 5 candidates and then just leave the rest of their vote blank as well, which would only further add to the problems of where to allocate that vote

I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote?

No. Politicians are stubborn little sh*ts who really need to see the writing on the wall that no one likes them before they decide to drop out.

True.

Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

^ That is the admitted downside to the primary system, though it would help to rotate which states go first at the start of every primary if that became the new rules

That would be a good idea. I would imagine the last to vote states are annoyed by the current system.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 6:33:05 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 6:21:28 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/3/2016 4:37:43 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:36:26 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election?

It helps widdle out the weaker inferior candidates who are running for office. Having the primaries all at once would split the vote in so many ways that a complete moron could end up winning just because everyone else preferred a different candidate.

Interesting. Couldent people just rank all the candidates in order with the first round eliminating the least popular candidate in terms of first picks with that candidates supporters second choice used instead?

That would work assuming that the states would be able to then calculate who won as candidates are eliminated from the ballot. Some states still have problems counting votes bewteen just TWO candidates, so upping it to twenty and then have them reshuffle the vote 19 times could easily lead to problems and possible fraud.

plus I dont think voters would really be able to correctly rank 20 candidates in order of preference since the average voter knows a good amount only of three or four candidates. People could rank 5 candidates and then just leave the rest of their vote blank as well, which would only further add to the problems of where to allocate that vote

I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote?

No. Politicians are stubborn little sh*ts who really need to see the writing on the wall that no one likes them before they decide to drop out.

True.

Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

^ That is the admitted downside to the primary system, though it would help to rotate which states go first at the start of every primary if that became the new rules

That would be a good idea. I would imagine the last to vote states are annoyed by the current system.

For whatever its worth. While I can identify plenty of places to improve out democracy, we have run a damn good democracy for a good long time. Outside criticism is fine by me, but I think our record stands on its own just fine.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 8:35:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 6:33:05 PM, TBR wrote:

For whatever its worth. While I can identify plenty of places to improve out democracy, we have run a damn good democracy for a good long time. Outside criticism is fine by me, but I think our record stands on its own just fine.

It could still use some tweaks though, namely how much money people and corporations can donate and how third parties can get their foot in the door better.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2016 8:36:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 8:35:52 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/3/2016 6:33:05 PM, TBR wrote:

For whatever its worth. While I can identify plenty of places to improve out democracy, we have run a damn good democracy for a good long time. Outside criticism is fine by me, but I think our record stands on its own just fine.

It could still use some tweaks though, namely how much money people and corporations can donate and how third parties can get their foot in the door better.

Agree all.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 5:46:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 2:30:31 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Im from the uk and hearing about the primary contests for the two main American parties. It seems strange to an outsider why it is so drawn out. Why not just hold all votes on the same day like a normal election? I'm no expert in American politics but aren't many candidates decided before all states actually vote? Does this not give the states that vote earlier a much bigger say than those who vote later?

I think it's mainly due to tradition. The USA was originally formed as a union of individual states who all did their own thing with voting systems and the timing of voting. I also assume in the early days of the USA it was a major task getting around such a vast country to campaign in the various states. The drawn out process likely made this easier with candidates moving from one state to the next. I agree it would be logical in modern times to change it to a single day vote across the whole country. However Americans love their traditions so I can't see things changing.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 6:14:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
So we can get some more Trump.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 7:08:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 5:59:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:30:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.

To eliminate the issue of someone winning on 20% of the vote you could rank candidates in order from 1-10 or however many are running. You could eliminate the person with the least first choice picks in round one. Then you could take the second choice of people voting for the candidate that has dropped out apply that vote to the second round. Keep doing this until 1 candidate has 50%.

Instant runoff voting is not a bad idea, although there are two problems with it that come to mind. First, expecting voters to be able to rank 15 candidates is not really realistic. Knowing whether you prefer candidate A or candidate B without ever seeing them go head to head is sometimes pretty hard, and in a race with 15 candidates running all at once, interactions between those two candidates could be pretty rare (or superficial). Second, the current system ensures that the candidates with the greatest support (and thus the greatest chance of winning) receive the most air time, because they stay in the race longer and thus participate in more debates, etc. If all the primaries were held on the same day, then the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between, say, Rubio and Cruz would be the same as the the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between Paul and Fiorina, which is a miallocation of resources in my opinion.

Bullshitt, you just go to isidewith.com, to determine the proper ranking of your candidates.
Rosalie
Posts: 4,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 7:17:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 7:08:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:59:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:30:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.

To eliminate the issue of someone winning on 20% of the vote you could rank candidates in order from 1-10 or however many are running. You could eliminate the person with the least first choice picks in round one. Then you could take the second choice of people voting for the candidate that has dropped out apply that vote to the second round. Keep doing this until 1 candidate has 50%.

Instant runoff voting is not a bad idea, although there are two problems with it that come to mind. First, expecting voters to be able to rank 15 candidates is not really realistic. Knowing whether you prefer candidate A or candidate B without ever seeing them go head to head is sometimes pretty hard, and in a race with 15 candidates running all at once, interactions between those two candidates could be pretty rare (or superficial). Second, the current system ensures that the candidates with the greatest support (and thus the greatest chance of winning) receive the most air time, because they stay in the race longer and thus participate in more debates, etc. If all the primaries were held on the same day, then the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between, say, Rubio and Cruz would be the same as the the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between Paul and Fiorina, which is a miallocation of resources in my opinion.

Bullshitt, you just go to isidewith.com, to determine the proper ranking of your candidates.

http://imgur.com... >:)
" We need more videos of cat's playing the piano on the internet" - My art professor.

"Criticism is easier to take when you realize that the only people who aren't criticized are those who don't take risks." - Donald Trump
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 8:39:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/4/2016 7:08:58 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:59:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:30:04 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 3/3/2016 5:00:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The primaries are staggered out over many months so that supporters of losing candidates have time to decide who they will fall back on once it becomes clear their preferred candidate has no chance of winning. It also gives voters information on who's doing well, which might be relevant to their decision. If all the primaries were held on the same day, you'd have candidates winning the nomination with only 20 percent of the vote, which is of course not a good way of gauging much of anything. In my opinion, the primaries could do a much better job of this by, for example, forcing the bottom candidates to drop out after so many primaries have gone by, so that the winnowing of the field happens automatically and is not left to the arbitrary decision of people like Ted Cruz.

To eliminate the issue of someone winning on 20% of the vote you could rank candidates in order from 1-10 or however many are running. You could eliminate the person with the least first choice picks in round one. Then you could take the second choice of people voting for the candidate that has dropped out apply that vote to the second round. Keep doing this until 1 candidate has 50%.

Instant runoff voting is not a bad idea, although there are two problems with it that come to mind. First, expecting voters to be able to rank 15 candidates is not really realistic. Knowing whether you prefer candidate A or candidate B without ever seeing them go head to head is sometimes pretty hard, and in a race with 15 candidates running all at once, interactions between those two candidates could be pretty rare (or superficial). Second, the current system ensures that the candidates with the greatest support (and thus the greatest chance of winning) receive the most air time, because they stay in the race longer and thus participate in more debates, etc. If all the primaries were held on the same day, then the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between, say, Rubio and Cruz would be the same as the the amount of information you'd have to make up your mind between Paul and Fiorina, which is a miallocation of resources in my opinion.

Bullshitt, you just go to isidewith.com, to determine the proper ranking of your candidates.

Lol why do people like that site so much.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 8:49:18 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
why do people like that site so much.

It helps you determine whose policy positions align with yours the most, and therefore who ypu should vote for
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2016 9:28:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/3/2016 8:35:52 PM, imabench wrote:
At 3/3/2016 6:33:05 PM, TBR wrote:

For whatever its worth. While I can identify plenty of places to improve out democracy, we have run a damn good democracy for a good long time. Outside criticism is fine by me, but I think our record stands on its own just fine.

It could still use some tweaks though, namely how much money people and corporations can donate and how third parties can get their foot in the door better.

Yah, lets go back to the good ole days when the bribes were not so obvious.