The Presidential Nomination Process

[Bonzi]

What are your thoughts on the following statement regarding the Nomination process:

The nomination process does a poor job of selecting viable presidential contenders. It takes too long and costs too much, deters good leaders from running, and diminishes those who do run.

The party does not end up having a sober conversation about its past, present, and future. Instead, the eventual nominee is dragged through the muck to no real purpose.

 

[Mac1958]

Sure, our electoral system is fucked up.

Look at the one issue that is always brought up when a potential contender is mentioned: Money. How much that person can raise, how much is currently in their "war chest", how that compares to other candidates, how much more they can raise. Money has completely distorted our electoral system.

Add to that the fact that the personal life of any candidate (particularly on a national level) is going to be so scrutinized, distorted and exposed that they know going in to it that the privacy, well-being and safety of their family is going to be damaged to some extent.

As a result, our REAL Best & Brightest know to stay the fuck OUT of politics.

.

 

[Auld Phart]

Goes back to the Golden Rule: "He Who Has the Gold, Rules."

 

[Bonzi]

So what is the problem with letting popular vote decide?

 

[Auld Phart]

And let NYC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco decide the election?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Put all of them on the ballot on election day 2016 and let the voters elect a president. No need for a selection process before November 2016. Let the voters narrow it down on one day. The process we have now is a joke, and a money game.

 

[Mac1958]

If money were taken out of the equation (I can only dream), there would have to be some kind of intra-/inter-party mechanism set up to pick a menu of candidates.

First, I'd guess, there would also have to be a mechanism that determined how many (and which) parties are actually allowed in the process.

Sadly, this thought exercise will never come to fruition because we appear to willing to allow our politics to be controlled by money.

.

 

[Seawytch]

So what is the problem with letting popular vote decide?

Democrats would always win.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Term limits & publicly funded elections with caps & limits

 

[whitehall]

One of the greatest things about American politics is the nomination process. It's a blend of a rowdy sign carrying circus atmosphere combined with a patriotic respect for Constitutional law. Would you rather have the military or the media pick a candidate or have a candidate picked in secret? It's unclear who is responsible for making sure political parties follow Constitutional law and sometimes a party might pick a candidate who's qualifications for the office are not proved or unclear such as being born in the U.S.A. but generally the system works.

 

[Mac1958]

Term limits & publicly funded elections with caps & limits

Amen

 

[evince]

the only way Rs win anymore is by keeping Americans from voting

 

[Moonglow]

the only way Rs win anymore is by keeping Americans from voting

Hardly...None have ever stopped myself or anyone I know..

 

[PoliticalChic]

the only way Rs win anymore is by keeping Americans from voting

Don't be obtuse.

. It is the Left that prevents voters from exercising their rights. They do it by having judges throw out millions of votes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Term limits & publicly funded elections with caps & limits

Amen

I just ordered Power's book.....have you read it?

 

[Moonglow]

the only way Rs win anymore is by keeping Americans from voting

Don't be obtuse.

. It is the Left that prevents voters from exercising their rights. They do it by having judges throw out millions of votes.

Just like when Bush was selected president by a court..

 

[WorldWatcher]

One of the greatest things about American politics is the nomination process. It's a blend of a rowdy sign carrying circus atmosphere combined with a patriotic respect for Constitutional law.

Personally I think one of the worst things about American politics is the nomination process with it's rowdy sign carrying circus atmosphere.

It takes to long with candidates running 2-years before an election and the way primaries and caucuses are spread out over such a long period and in some states you don't even have to be a registered member of a party to vote in their primaries make it difficult for a viable candidate to make it through the process.

To win the primaries candidates are often forced to extremes to survive the primary process but when they get to a national vote the positions they had to kowtow to hurt them in general elections.

What I'd like to see is something like this:

1. All primaries are held in one vote on the same day for all parties. There are separate ballots for each party. At the time of voting you declare a party and receive a ballot for that party and the type of ballot issued is noted.

2. Any candidate garnering 2/3rds majority of the primary vote for that party is the winner.

3. If 2/3rds majority is not achieved for a given party, 30-days later their is a "run off" vote consisting of the top 3 candidates by the vote. Only if you voted as a member of that party in the previous primary (See #1) are you allowed to vote in that parties run off vote.

4. If a candidate garners 50%(+1) vote they are the party candidate, if no candidate receives 50%(+1), then a second run off is held in 15-days with the winner of that run off as the candidate.

5. Sufficient time is allocated to allow up to 3 rounds of voting and to provide at least 90-days of campaigning prior to the full general election.​

>>>>

 

[PoliticalChic]

the only way Rs win anymore is by keeping Americans from voting

Don't be obtuse.

. It is the Left that prevents voters from exercising their rights. They do it by having judges throw out millions of votes.

Just like when Bush was selected president by a court..

That never happened.

I'm always amused at the childish myths you Liberals believe.


Better duck: Here comes another custard pie I'm gonna smash in your kisser:


"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html


2. The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

3. "An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.

The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory."
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-11/a-2001-11-12-4-Newspaper.cfm?moddate=2001-11-12



Now prove what a good little Liberal you are by not apologizing for your error.

 

[Moonglow]

the only way Rs win anymore is by keeping Americans from voting

Don't be obtuse.

. It is the Left that prevents voters from exercising their rights. They do it by having judges throw out millions of votes.

Just like when Bush was selected president by a court..

That never happened.

I'm always amused at the childish myths you Liberals believe.


Better duck: Here comes another custard pie I'm gonna smash in your kisser:


"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html


2. The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

3. "An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.

The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory."
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-11/a-2001-11-12-4-Newspaper.cfm?moddate=2001-11-12



Now prove what a good little Liberal you are by not apologizing for your error.

Why, a court determined the outcome.....You are wrong again..

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think restrictions on party voting are a bad idea. You should be free to vote for whomever you choose without having to reveal any party affiliation.