2016 elections - because it's never too early

[alfred russel]

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

I think there is a case that nominating via the current methodology more "likewise" to the presidential election than your popular vote method.

In both cases, people vote, and there votes are converted to delegates (in the case of the party nomination) or electors (in the case of the president). If the delegates/electors do not arrive on a majority candidate after they vote the way the elections mandated, then the delegates are left to select the nominee and the House of Representatives the president.

It isn't really correct to say that second vote isn't democratic. The delegates, with exceptions, have been voted for by people. Most of them were selected either directly on primary ballots, by candidates that the people of the district voted for, or through votes at local party meetings. In the case of the presidential elections, the House of Representatives have entirely been elected by the people of their district.

[Berkut]

Indeed - given the practical restrictions of a two party system, it is perfectly reasonable to use the process the GOP broadly has now to avoid exactly what we have right now - electing someone who the majority of people do NOT want, because we do not have a run off system that allows people to make choices like "Who do you want to be your nominee? If that person is not available, who is your second choice?"

Trump does not have a majority of support. It would be UN-democratic to give him the nominee without a process to ascertain whether or not a majority of candidates actually want him over every other possible option.

We live in a representative democracy, not Athens.

[jimmy olsen]

Indeed - given the practical restrictions of a two party system, it is perfectly reasonable to use the process the GOP broadly has now to avoid exactly what we have right now - electing someone who the majority of people do NOT want, because we do not have a run off system that allows people to make choices like "Who do you want to be your nominee? If that person is not available, who is your second choice?"

A transferable vote system where you list your preference in order is not that hard to design.

[Valmy]

Tim also wants to get rid of the electoral college.

Well he is correct. The EC is absurd.

[Valmy]

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.

Except the parties were never part of the design of the republic, aristocratic or otherwise, so their structure is unrelated to the system.

[Jaron]

Tim also wants to get rid of the electoral college.

Well he is correct. The EC is absurd.

And just which system would you prefer?

[MadImmortalMan]

Except the parties were never part of the design of the republic, aristocratic or otherwise, so their structure is unrelated to the system.

I don't understand political systems designed for parties. I think this is one thing I'm hopelessly an optimist on: I never want political parties codified into law in any way. They aren't in the constitution. Maybe in some wonderful future they won't exist.

Also, I prefer to vote for people. Not colors.

[alfred russel]

Cruz swept Wyoming yesterday.

And Trump, while you might think would do well in the vote in West Virginia, is poised to lose delegates because...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/trump-likely-to-win-west-virginia-but-lose-delegates-222036

Apparently candidates are required to submit their delegate lists, and Trump submitted his list. But a new rule in effect says that only two delegates can come from the same county, and Trump submitted a bunch of people from the same county. So of the first 9 delegates he selected, if they all win, 5 will be disqualified.

Are the rules stupid? No doubt. But everyone is on the same playing field, and it looks like Trump is just unable to run a competent campaign beyond his TV appearances.

[CountDeMoney]

That's what happens when an independent candidate runs for a party nomination without, you know, being an actual member of the party and knowing how it works and stuff. 

[jimmy olsen]

[Valmy]

And just which system would you prefer?

The same system we use to elect every other office? Every vote counts, even if the rest of your state prefers the other person.

[Berkut]

And just which system would you prefer?

The same system we use to elect every other office? Every vote counts, even if the rest of your state prefers the other person.

But primaries are not for electing anyone to any office. They are a means by which political parties choose their candidates to run for office.

Personally, I think the current overall primary system is fine. If either party wants to change the particulars, it is up to them to do so, within reason.

The primary system is, at the heart, much like voting for a congressman rather than voting directly on legislation. You are electing people (delegates) to send to a convention to make a choice. I think it is perfectly reasonable to elect people who agree to vote for a particular candidate on that first ballot.

But it isn't even necessarily the case that a delegate should be about particular candidates. You could, at least in theory, elect delegates who care about particular issues, rather than particular candidates.

I could go to some state, and put myself up for election to the convention and tell the caucus voters they should send me because I will promise to support candidates who are tough on crime, or abortion, or foreign policy.

[Valmy]

I was talking about the Electoral College not the Primaries. I would prefer we do three or four big primaries over the course of a month or so. In this time of the internet it could be done. But hey no big deal.

[Berkut]

I was talking about the Electoral College not the Primaries. I would prefer we do three or four big primaries over the course of a month or so. In this time of the internet it could be done. But hey no big deal.

Oh sorry - I actually agree that we should ditch the electoral college for Presidential elections, and just go to a direct election.

[Jaron]

How would that work? It seems it'd be really messy.

The EC allows elections to be finalized state by state. You can have a clear winner in the state and close the door on the election cycle.

If it was conducted nationally by popular vote (which I'm not sure if that's what is being proposed) it seems like a close national popular vote could potentially trigger a nation wide recount and that would be very chaotic. Imagine Florida x 50.

Although - I think if we modernized our voting system and standardized it across the US we could eliminate the need for recounts. I'm sure there is some voter tampering now but if voting was done through computers and web databases it'd be easier to aggregate everything. If security was handled properly - and I have no faith in the government to do it properly right now - if there was hacking or vote tampering then at least its harder to hide.

I know the company I work for was attacked relentlessly by hackers a few years ago and while we experienced some unpleasantness we knew we were being attacked and we knew our data was safe. The important thing is creating a more visible fingerprint that votes have been tampered with.