Election Trolling, is it moral in a democracy?

[manifold]

The issue that interests me is this counters the purpose of a democracy, one vote.

Like I've said before, the whole primary system counters the purpose of democracy. I'm not sure why you'd want to cherry pick one aspect of it that likely has never produced any material influence.

 

[Care4all]

The rules need to be changed imho and the primary needs to be held all on one day and that primary popular vote should determine the candidate for each party.

But someday, I would like to see it go to one primary that allows all of us to vote for the best two or three or four candidates for president out of 20 if need be, without party consideration and then in the general election we pick out of them, our president/vice president.... or even like in the beginnings in the usa, the person with the most votes is president and the person with the second amount of votes is the vice president, regardless of party affiliation, so we could have a republican president and a Democrat as the VP....

hahahahahaha! I know, I know....I am dreaming here!

But to answer your question Midcan, I personally think that it is immoral and defeats the purpose of democracy and the respective party primaries.

On the second question, I do not think it is immoral if it is the truth, but I do think that it is a tad bit slimey....close to being immoral...

care

 

[Ravi]

"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great..."

Derek Parfit

I suppose one could get totally paranoid and just not vote at all with that logic. After all, a vote cast isn't a guarantee that your choice is correct.

 

[manifold]

The rules need to be changed imho and the primary needs to be held all on one day and that primary popular vote should determine the candidate for each party.

But someday, I would like to see it go to one primary that allows all of us to vote for the best two or three or four candidates for president out of 20 if need be, without party consideration and then in the general election we pick out of them, our president/vice president.... or even like in the beginnings in the usa, the person with the most votes is president and the person with the second amount of votes is the vice president, regardless of party affiliation, so we could have a republican president and a Democrat as the VP....

hahahahahaha! I know, I know....I am dreaming here!

But to answer your question Midcan, I personally think that it is immoral and defeats the purpose of democracy and the respective party primaries.

On the second question, I do not think it is immoral if it is the truth, but I do think that it is a tad bit slimey....close to being immoral...

care

I've actually had a similar idea myself. I'd set it up with a quarter-final, a semi-final and the final election. Have the quarters in january or february and anyone that meets the minimum qualifications gets on the ballot. The top 5 or 6 move on to the semis. Have those sometime in the summer. And the top 2 or 3 move on the finals. Then hold the general in november as always.

 

[Care4all]

The only reason that primary vote manipulation by the "other side" can occur is because there is not one specific day for the Primaries to be held and decided for both parties.

 

[Ravi]

The only reason that primary vote manipulation by the "other side" can occur is because there is not one specific day for the Primaries to be held and decided for both parties.

Good point.

 

[midcan5]

The only reason that primary vote manipulation by the "other side" can occur is because there is not one specific day for the Primaries to be held and decided for both parties.

That's a excellent point but the primaries also serve to hash out ideas and to develop candidates, if the process is distorted with cross over voting it upsets the entire idea.

 

[manifold]

That's a excellent point but the primaries also serve to hash out ideas and to develop candidates, if the process is distorted with cross over voting it upsets the entire idea.

With all due respect, that's like saying that when I piss in the ocean, it upsets the entire salt/H2O balance.

 

[midcan5]

With all due respect, that's like saying that when I piss in the ocean, it upsets the entire salt/H2O balance.

If politics are at the margins as most claim then your analogy holds no water.

 

[manifold]

If politics are at the margins as most claim then your analogy holds no water.

"most" claim?

Are you suggesting that swing voters are flocking to the primary polls with the specific objective of voting for someone they don't want to be president?

Hey, I'm certainly a fan of academic discussions, but I know the difference between that and reality. It would appear that many here don't, no offense.

 

[Care4all]

That's a excellent point but the primaries also serve to hash out ideas and to develop candidates, if the process is distorted with cross over voting it upsets the entire idea.

Just as the Presidency....there would still be a runup of debates and discussions of ideas before the Primary? How would that change Midcan?

Care

 

[Ravi]

Just as the Presidency....there would still be a runup of debates and discussions of ideas before the Primary? How would that change Midcan?

Care

I like your idea. Have a national primary sometime in late May. That way all the candidates have plenty of time to compete and then plenty of time to for the nominees to make their case.

 

[Annie]

You all know who sets the rules of the primaries, right?

 

[Care4all]

You all know who sets the rules of the primaries, right?

The stupid political parties is my guess?

 

[Dogger]

When the one sides chooses the opposition, you don't get a real debate over policy in the general election. You get one side that forcefully presents its position, regardless of how nutty or extreme it is, and you get another side that is so weak and unrepresentative of alternative views that only an imbicile would regard it as a fair discussion. You get Hannity and Colmes.

 

[midcan5]

Just as the Presidency....there would still be a runup of debates and discussions of ideas before the Primary? How would that change Midcan?

Care

But candidates develop over time and their ideas hopefully grow and even change. In a sense it would be the primary election rather than a working out of issues and ideas that the electorate considered important. Consider the early favorites, would it be Guilani v Clinton now?

 

[manifold]

Midcan5,

I've been giving this a bit more thought an I think I misunderstood what you were driving at initially. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that you are commenting on the fact that for the first time (at least in my lifetime), die-hard members of one party (republicans) can vote in droves in the other's primary to influence the opposition's candidate since their's has been already decided and the opposition's is such a tight race. This seems obvious to me now so I'm not exactly sure where I went wrong, but regardless, I got there eventually. But back to your initial question: I still do not think it is immoral. But I do have a question of my own: If the democrats are concerned about republicans influencing their primary race, then why don't the dem leaders get together and pick which candidate they want to represent them, and tell the other one to step the fuck down already? The time for hashing out ideas is passed and it's all politicking now anyway.

 

[Ravi]

Midcan5,

I've been giving this a bit more thought an I think I misunderstood what you were driving at initially. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that you are commenting on the fact that for the first time (at least in my lifetime), die-hard members of one party (republicans) can vote in droves in the other's primary to influence the opposition's candidate since their's has been already decided and the opposition's is such a tight race. This seems obvious to me now so I'm not exactly sure where I went wrong, but regardless, I got there eventually. But back to your initial question: I still do not think it is immoral. But I do have a question of my own: If the democrats are concerned about republicans influencing their primary race, then why don't the dem leaders get together and pick which candidate they want to represent them, and tell the other one to step the fuck down already? The time for hashing out ideas is passed and it's all politicking now anyway.

Because it would be seen as disenfranchising voters.

 

[midcan5]

Ravir answered before I got here. We the people....

 

[manifold]

Because it would be seen as disenfranchising voters.

That's the political corner the dems have now painted themselves into. But I don't think it would've taken Nostradumbass to see it coming. It all could've been avoided IMO.