2016 elections - because it's never too early

[garbon]

In my opinion the parties should be legally required to determine their candidates by popular vote.

I don't see why.

[jimmy olsen]

In my opinion the parties should be legally required to determine their candidates by popular vote.

I don't see why.

If you're going to run your candidate in a democratic election they should be nominated in a likewise fashion. It's that simple.

[Eddie Teach]

Tim also wants to get rid of the electoral college.

[garbon]

In my opinion the parties should be legally required to determine their candidates by popular vote.

I don't see why.

If you're going to run your candidate in a democratic election they should be nominated in a likewise fashion. It's that simple.

Yeah again, I don't really see why that should be the case.

[celedhring]

I believe that in such a fiercely two-party system it has to be the case. There's a significant barrier to get elected if you aren't a candidate from these two parties, and have the support of their elites.

[Martinus]

I guess from a certain perspective it can be said that the very institution of electoral college was put into the US constitution to make the US into an aristocratic republic, to prevent people like Trump from getting elected (or at least making it very difficult for them).

[garbon]

I believe that in such a fiercely two-party system it has to be the case. There's a significant barrier to get elected if you aren't a candidate from these two parties, and have the support of their elites.

And we've been that way from fairly early on.

[Martinus]

I believe that in such a fiercely two-party system it has to be the case. There's a significant barrier to get elected if you aren't a candidate from these two parties, and have the support of their elites.

And we've been that way from fairly early on.

Ok, and?

[garbon]

I believe that in such a fiercely two-party system it has to be the case. There's a significant barrier to get elected if you aren't a candidate from these two parties, and have the support of their elites.

And we've been that way from fairly early on.

Ok, and?

I'm not the one advocating a change with little reasoning to support it.

[Martinus]

The argument why the system is undemocratic is pretty obvious. But as I said, the US was not supposed to be a democracy, but an aristocratic republic.

[Eddie Teach]

Having our President elected by the membership of one party doesn't sound very democratic either.

[garbon]

The argument why the system is undemocratic is pretty obvious. But as I said, the US was not supposed to be a democracy, but an aristocratic republic.

I don't see there being a problem that the selection of initial candidates is "undemocratic."

[celedhring]

It is when you effectively only have two candidates.

[Eddie Teach]

That people can only vote in one of the two primary elections makes them undemocratic by nature. They are votes, sure, but only for a segment of the population.

[garbon]

It is when you effectively only have two candidates.

Well I'd love to stay here and see us repeat ourselves all day but I think I'll go furniture shopping instead.