US Elections 2008

[yezhanquan]

"Grandpa" McCain, I guess. Still, if McCain becomes president, and he kicks the bucket within 2 years, we'll have this all over again.

[Xellos-_^]

nope, if mccain wins and kicks it in 2 years. the Veep will be sworn in as prez and election will be held in 2012.

[yezhanquan]

Oh, forgot that the VP existed. (*murmurs something about Dick Cheney*)

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Reckoner's proposed reform

When did I ever suggest a type of reform

If I was running the election process, all I would do is make more super tuesdays, so we'd have maybe like 10 groups of them. 5 per group, and then randomly assign their order every election in which they'd vote, spread them out over some months and then you got an election.

Some people may say this weakens the powers of smaller states, but I find this quite trivial, since states like California, Texas, New York, etc. deserve to have the most influence as they themselves have the most people.

However if America was willing to do it, they never would be, I'd reform the election process more akin to what you were saying Irenicus, how the party gets about as many seats as they get votes. Yeah, this system also has its faults, but I like it better I think.

[ApostleOfGod]

McCain will probably win, unless Repubs start thinking.... Lol...

Damn. I want you Americans to give Obama a chance.

I saw Hillary do her final speech, and damn it was good. Good to see the real good side of her now, rather than the whole business serious facade.. She was good.. But it's good that she cleared up the message for everyone to endorse Obama for the Democratic party, and her message of Yes We Can was great.

In any case, I'm just against the whole idea of a continous war in Iraq, although I feel the "war on terror" won't stop until A-Q and other terrorists stop...

Just no McCain. I don't trust that man ... lol

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

I want you Americans to give Obama a chance.

If Obama loses, he literally loses an unlosable election. This would be even worst than Kerry's loss to Bush. Republicans have it got it BAD right now.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

McCain will probably win, unless Repubs start thinking.... Lol...

Damn. I want you Americans to give Obama a chance.

I saw Hillary do her final speech, and damn it was good. Good to see the real good side of her now, rather than the whole business serious facade.. She was good.. But it's good that she cleared up the message for everyone to endorse Obama for the Democratic party, and her message of Yes We Can was great.

In any case, I'm just against the whole idea of a continous war in Iraq, although I feel the "war on terror" won't stop until A-Q and other terrorists stop...

Just no McCain. I don't trust that man ... lol

The one thing that I agree with the Republican party is that US should stay in Iraq. The war in Iraq was a bad idea to start and it should have been avoided. The reality is that the war happened and the US screw up Iraq. So I see the US should take the responsibility and fix the problem.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

When did I ever suggest a type of reform

I meant it only in the sense that you are arguing against what's going on in the electoral process, 'is all.

[WanderingKnight]

On regards to the smaller candidates, this is the way we handle things here (keep in mind that Argentina is a free-for-all multipartisanship, you only need a couple thousand signatures to get your party approved):

There are separate elections held for legislators. In fact, sometimes we get both elections at the same time (governor/president and legislators), and you may vote for different parties. In my case, on the last election for Buenos Aires governor I voted for the candidate that had the most chances to beat the "bad" one (though that one won in the end...), and voted for a smaller Socialist party for legislators. And it worked, somewhat--the Socialist party managed to get a couple of members into the legislative corps. I did the same for the last presidential elections. The legislative elections work in a system of direct assignment--if your party got 25%, you get 25% of Congress.

It's obviously not perfect, and the system is still exploited in the advantage of stronger parties (well, the only strong party nowadays is Peronism), but it still leaves a window open for smaller candidates.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by cors8

On the primary subject though, I wish they would get rid of caucuses. It's supposed to be 1 person, 1 vote, with privacy, and every legal vote should count.

Even the primaries are not 1 person, 1 vote. If your candidate does not meet the 15% threshold, they do not get any delegates. Also, by the way delegates are done, you can get fewer votes and more delegates. The caucus on the other hand actually does make it 1 person, 1 vote since all non-viable candidates are removed and therefore, you can throw your weight behind who you want.

Originally Posted by Onizuka-GTO

i also want to know what's wrong with Florida? seems like every time it votes, the results get rejected.

Can someone point out that "something", that must be glaringly obvious about that county?

Do they seem to like breaking the election rules or is it a tradition or something?

Florida is well... Florida. Statistically, more bizarre and random things happen there than any other state in the US. There have been a number of articles on the subject and, at times, there is also some discussion on Fark about it since it is the only state with it's own Fark tag.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

unless you financing your own campaign, it is not your own money but money form donors. and if politican wants waste all their money campagining, let them.

The reason we have our current messed up system of campaign finance laws is because of the above. People do not want the companies influencing or the most powerful person monetarily to be the one with the best chance of becoming president. People do not donate to campaigns that they do not believe can win unless they are so in the bag for the candidate that they are willing to sit out. This is why Clinton was practically begging her primary donors to stick with her through the end and was making loans to herself.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

If Obama loses, he literally loses an unlosable election. This would be even worst than Kerry's loss to Bush. Republicans have it got it BAD right now.

If there is one thing the democratic party is great at, it is biting themselves in the ass and losing a won battle.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I suppose that's the theory behind why it should be spaced out in terms of time, but holding the results for a synchronized release would probably be good. It's true that people are influenced by results from other places, so it would really be more fair if people make their choices based on what they believe and their perceptions, rather than knowing that one candidate seems to have a better chance of winning over another, poll-wise.

The actual primary results do not have that large an influence over actual voters. (Despite what the poll results after NH seemed to say.) The polls and the results are relatively invariant from other results after the initial "Oh hey they are viable" and "Oh well, they have no chance" sticker shock wears off early on. Campaigning has more of an effect than winning a state after the initial few results.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

if you are talking about my first idea, it does handicap the smaller candidate and give a advantage to the candidate who is better organize. But it would stop with a winner being declare after a few races as in the past. And if you set the voting date to say June 1 for all 50 states. All candidates get 6 months to make thier case to the voters, before it is decided.

How about a winner being declared before any voting has even occurred like what happened this year? The media cycle this year would have kept up the "Hillary and Rudy are going to be nominated, it is just a matter of time". The candidates who are never able to achieve front runner status cannot afford running a 50 state campaign due to a media that will ignore them and some very expensive media markets. This leaves them mass debates and talk shows to actually get noticed. It doesn't matter how well organized they are.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

that is why i recommand A. where every state vote on June 1 so everyone gets 6 month of campaign time.

or

B. space it out the votes but no disclosure of the results until everyone has voted.

For A, in addition to what the others have mentioned about funding, not much would change over those 5 months. We would get a lot of political garbage, "scandals" and non-"scandals", and the results would not change much unless one candidate really screwed up. Notice how well Clinton and Rudy were doing in the lead up to NH and Iowa until people realized "Oh hey look, we actually have a choice."

For B, this actually creates a very dangerous issue. People see a modern society as one that releases its final results within 24 hours of voting. The real issue is the exit polls would end up becoming the results. (Note: If you are going to say "Then hold the exit polls too", they leak out almost every time. The difference is who controls the numbers.) Whatever people see or whatever the campaigns pretend to see is going to become reality and it is going to be a very chaotic reality. "Our own internals show that we won the state by 25 points" when reality is that they won by 10 or the great near tie in Indiana which very few saw coming.

There are actually a number of legal issues with this one too. Ex: If there is to be a recount, it has to be requested within a certain time frame. Not that a recount really matters for the Dems being proportional.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by ApostleOfGod

In any case, I'm just against the whole idea of a continous war in Iraq, although I feel the "war on terror" won't stop until A-Q and other terrorists stop...

The terrorists won't stop until they win or until we can prove to people that we're not worth fighting against. Fighting back against them doesn't contribute to either of those two options.

This isn't directed at you, ApostleofGod, but it always irked me that some people seem to think that terrorists are nothing more than gangs who cause mischief just for the heck of it. These are people who believe that America is truly evil, that we have invaded their land and want to destroy their way of life and what is sacred to them. Whether the leaders at the top of the terrorist organizations really buy into that or not does not matter, anyone who believes anything of that nature is likely to join into these terrorist organizations. Demonizing them as killers on the loose does nothing in working toward peace.

It's always helpful to try and imagine what it might be like on the other side of the fence. To take a totally ridiculous scenario, suppose China invaded America and completely ousted our government. Under the new rules we're allowed to continue speaking English and largely living as we please, but now we're under a government system put in place by the Chinese, and it is modeled after their own government. For better or for worse, our new government has taken away many of our freedoms and acts in a somewhat authoritarian manner in the interest of the public good. We are supposedly an autonomous nation, but forces from the Chinese military still make their presence known. Some Americans attempt to rebel against the Chinese, and every now and then innocent civilians are killed by both sides in the fighting.

Tell me, how do you feel? Do you trust and support this new government that was put into place by a foreign power? Do you not feel resentment for the fact that foreign military forces are on your land? Do you wonder just how much autonomy your country really has?

If the idea of China is either too much for you or is pleasing to you, change it to another country: Russia; North Korea; Iran; Israel; Mexico; Canada; pick any "enemy" country of your choice. I felt resentment while I wrote it, and it wasn't because it was the thought of China (for the record I like China just fine). It was the idea that our way of life was forcefully uprooted and something that was not the will of the people was put into place.

Perhaps some of you read that and immediately wanted to reject the scenario. "Iraq was a dictatorship and the population wasn't a fan of Saddam Hussein, whereas Americans, for all their complaining about their government, don't have to live in fear. of course you'd feel resentful in the scenario, but the Iraqis and other terrorists have no right to feel that way." If you thought that, then you went under the assumption that our way of life and our government system is something that everyone wants and desires. You assumed that because people were living under conditions that you'd find deplorable that they must have been miserable.

You could be right or wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that people clearly resent our forced activities. We know that we have good intentions - of course we trust our own forces and activities. Why should a foreign group of people trust us? I can see why people would be drawn to terrorism as a means of fighting back. Until we can fix the source of mistrust and anger toward us, I think we'll keep suffering violence. Completely annihilating terrorist groups with violence doesn't seem to me to have a very good chance of eliminating violence completely.

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

The one thing that I agree with the Republican party is that US should stay in Iraq. The war in Iraq was a bad idea to start and it should have been avoided. The reality is that the war happened and the US screw up Iraq. So I see the US should take the responsibility and fix the problem.

How? As I wrote above, I don't know that the entire population will come to trust the US. Since the new Iraqi government was largely put into place by the US I'm very afraid that most of the population will not recognize it as legitimate. The US can either stay in Iraq until the old generations who remember what life was like without the US die out (brainwashing might help) or they can pull out and let the population decide its fate. The greatest failing of the new government is that it was not wholly and completely put together by its own population. If the population doesn't recognize it as legitimate then it is a failure in every sense of the word.

I certainly hope that it can gain enough power to keep itself alive and be accepted by its people. I'm just worried that whether it's today or 50 years from now, once the US stops keeping that government running through military force the population will reject it, go through more turmoil, and ultimately set up something new. The push for democracy has to come from the population itself, and it isn't right for everyone. I don't advocate packing up all US forces this instant, we should certainly try to support the government as much as we can - but within reason. Rome wasn't built in a day and all, but if the government is floundering then what we're doing is simply prolonging suffering.

[WanderingKnight]

The one thing that I agree with the Republican party is that US should stay in Iraq. The war in Iraq was a bad idea to start and it should have been avoided. The reality is that the war happened and the US screw up Iraq. So I see the US should take the responsibility and fix the problem.

Yes! Let's stay and humiliate the Iraqi population even further.

Honestly, the best thing the US can do is get the hell out of there, at least out of respect for the countless dead civilians and ruined lives. They could also throw a few bucks in compensation, but I'm afraid that's not profitable enough for them.

[cors8]

Who's going to pay for the war? It's all borrowed money that's not even being calculated into our national debt.

Let's not forget our strained military too.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by cors8

Who's going to pay for the war? It's all borrowed money that's not even being calculated into our national debt.

Let's not forget our strained military too.

The same people as always; the same ones who will be stuck with the national debt and insolvent social security: the children of the baby boomers (i.e. us.). I'm sure we will find a way to pass the buck to our children though.

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

The terrorists won't stop until they win or until we can prove to people that we're not worth fighting against.

The proof you request:

The western world can embrace Sharia and leave the Jewish state to fend for itself.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

The one thing that I agree with the Republican party is that US should stay in Iraq. The war in Iraq was a bad idea to start and it should have been avoided. The reality is that the war happened and the US screw up Iraq. So I see the US should take the responsibility and fix the problem.

I agree and disagree.

Completely pulling out of Afganistan, after the country was ravaged, and leaving no opertaional system behind back in the 70s was exactly the mistake that you describe. That mistake should never be repeated again. However, Iraq has a fairly functional government in place, and breaking off the "state of war" is plausable. Of course, there should be some American presence there until everything is situated, but I don't see the need to keep itself in state of war.

By American presense, I'm envisioning something like the post-WWII American occupation in Japan.
It was no longer in state of war, but bases were kept, and there were always American presense while the nation rebuilt itself. I think that's a fairly ideal situation for Iraq.
I understand that Iraq has a larger opposition threat than what Japan faced in the 1950s and on, but that's an issue the nation will have to deal on its own. U.S. should treat the government as an ally, and help when necessary, of course. But that's the extent of what should be in place, IMO. US is not there to colonize the place afterall.

[Vexx]

The *US* may not be there to colonize... but there are certain interests (*cough*oil/energy, contract industry *cough*) that see big bucks in a long term presence with huge bases.

[Terrestrial Dream]

Originally Posted by aohige

I agree and disagree.

Completely pulling out of Afganistan, after the country was ravaged, and leaving no opertaional system behind back in the 70s was exactly the mistake that you describe. That mistake should never be repeated again. However, Iraq has a fairly functional government in place, and breaking off the "state of war" is plausable. Of course, there should be some American presence there until everything is situated, but I don't see the need to keep itself in state of war.

By American presense, I'm envisioning something like the post-WWII American occupation in Japan.
It was no longer in state of war, but bases were kept, and there were always American presense while the nation rebuilt itself. I think that's a fairly ideal situation for Iraq.
I understand that Iraq has a larger opposition threat than what Japan faced in the 1950s and on, but that's an issue the nation will have to deal on its own. U.S. should treat the government as an ally, and help when necessary, of course. But that's the extent of what should be in place, IMO. US is not there to colonize the place afterall.

Yeah I agree with your statement, the Iraqis do need some aid from the US to have a functional government. It is true that Iraq is in terrible state right now ;however, I think US pulling out from Iraq will make the situation worse. Of course US probably need some kind of gradual pull out plan, hopefully by at least 50years or so the Iraqis will have strong central government. Though I think it will be tough for the Iraqis to follow the success of the post World War II Eastern Asian countries.

Originally Posted by Vexx

The *US* may not be there to colonize... but there are certain interests (*cough*oil/energy, contract industry *cough*) that see big bucks in a long term presence with huge bases.

Similar to Iran isn't it? Then again US attempt influence Iran failed big time by looking at today, let's hope that US will at least not make another enemy in Middle East.

[Vexx]

Most of the world seems to recognize that we have a small group of robber barons pulling the levers at the moment (much like the decades of the 1890s and the 1920s) and that we're trying to do something about it. Hopefully that good will is patient....