Civil war if Hillary wins?

[quade 3]

rehmwa

******private associations would do better if the government controlled them - got it

nothing the courts would disagree with there

no sirree

Thanks for completely misrepresenting what I said. Internet points to you? I guess?

nonsense - if you can't explain yourself clearly ("go read Alan's post where he proposes a hypothetical for the private parties to move to - for discussion purposes"), then don't blame the 5 other people that have replied the same as I did

Consider this statement from AlanS in post #87 of this thread.

Quote

The current system going a state at a time - disenfranchises 99% of the voters. It might have made sense in 1820 before the internet and when the country was much smaller, but right now, if you were to create a system from scratch letting Iowa and New Hampshire be the primary element in selecting a president just doesn't make any sense.

Source: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4821736#4821736

Then . . . read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary#Timing

Now, please, for the love of God, tell me how what AlanS wants to do can possibly be done without Federal intervention to ensure states (not parties) messing with it? It can't. Not under the current rules. In order to change the rules there would absolutely need to be a change to the US Constitution.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

Now, please, for the love of God, tell me how what AlanS wants to do can possibly be done without Federal intervention to ensure states (not parties) messing with it? It can't. Not under the current rules. In order to change the rules there would absolutely need to be a change to the US Constitution.

Of course it can be done without Federal interference. It could be done by the RNC and DNC with no help from government at all.

I seriously fail to understand how a Constitutional amendment would be written. Can you give us an example? I'm not the only one who has no idea what you're trying to say.

- Dan G

[quade 3]

DanG

I seriously fail to understand how a Constitutional amendment would be written. Can you give us an example? I'm not the only one who has no idea what you're trying to say.

Did you read the part where the state of New Hampshire has in its state constitution that it MUST be the first primary state? I specifically linked it.

The dates of the primaries are decided by the individual states (not the parties). All of them. It's not a decision of the parties because those primary elections include more than just that decision.

If there were to be a nation-wide change in that, it would have to come from the Federal government. In order to do that, it would require a US Constitutional Amendment since currently those primary election dates are "reserved by the states."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

Did you read the part where the state of New Hampshire has in its state constitution that it MUST be the first primary state? I specifically linked it.

No you didn't.

Anyway, if you had said you were only talking about the primary dates it would have saved us all a lot of time.

I still don't see how a Constitutional amendment would be written to require private corporations to do something on a specific date.

- Dan G

[yoink 321]

DJL

We can't have a President who only 33.5% of the voters want in office.

As depressing as this is the actual figure is much lower. I believe the real figure is 21.97%...

[quade 3]

DanG

Quote

Did you read the part where the state of New Hampshire has in its state constitution that it MUST be the first primary state? I specifically linked it.

No you didn't.

Cheese and crackers, buddy. YES, I DID. See post #107.

Quote

Anyway, if you had said you were only talking about the primary dates it would have saved us all a lot of time.

I still don't see how a Constitutional amendment would be written to require private corporations to do something on a specific date.

Because it's not solely up to the "private corporations." The states are involved.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DJL 232]

yoink

*** We can't have a President who only 33.5% of the voters want in office.

As depressing as this is the actual figure is much lower. I believe the real figure is 21.97%...

I'm referring to the voting required for 1 candidate in a field of three to win as a reason for the General election to only allow two candidates. In my opinion third party and write-in candidates are rubbish but that also goes hand in hand with my belief that the Primaries need to do a better job at being selective so that the candidates are more representative of our desires. An example of that is Ranked Voting which is shown to produce much better results.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,433]

>It could be done by the RNC and DNC with no help from government at all.

Agreed. Indeed, it could be done by a completely new party without federal involvement.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Cheese and crackers, buddy. YES, I DID. See post #107.

I'll give you the cheese, but no crackers. The Wiki article points to a section of the New Hampshire code, not the New Hampshire state constitution.

Quote

Because it's not solely up to the "private corporations." The states are involved.

The states are involved, true, but only because the RNC and DNC decided to work that way. Is the Libertarian primary in New Hampshire on the same day as the Democratic and Republican? How about the Green Party, or Communist Party?

- Dan G

[DJL 232]

DanG

Quote

Cheese and crackers, buddy. YES, I DID. See post #107.

I'll give you the cheese, but no crackers. The Wiki article points to a section of the New Hampshire code, not the New Hampshire state constitution.

Quote

Because it's not solely up to the "private corporations." The states are involved.

The states are involved, true, but only because the RNC and DNC decided to work that way. Is the Libertarian primary in New Hampshire on the same day as the Democratic and Republican? How about the Green Party, or Communist Party?

It's unfortunate that the political parties even have any control over how candidates are selected. The system is broken and the only people who can change it are the ones who utilize its deficiencies for their own candidate.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[quade 3]

DJL

It's unfortunate that the political parties even have any control over how candidates are selected. The system is broken and the only people who can change it are the ones who utilize its deficiencies for their own candidate.

This includes so much such as gerrymandering for instance.

And voter suppression;
https://www.thenation.com/article/voter-suppression-is-a-much-bigger-problem-than-voter-fraud/?nc=1

I agree with you. I personally think it needs a complete revamp, but as I've been saying today, it really requires a US Constitutional Amendment to make the entire thing fair nation-wide because there's no way you'd ever get 50 states to agree to the same standards any other way.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Gosh....everything looks like a nail.....



I guess the primaries are flawed because they got what their membership allowed them to have. Whether they fix themselves from within, or by some weird expansion of government power over the parties, or by an even weirder expansion of federal bullying the states even more - we're still talking symptoms and not cures.

I suspect things won't get better at all until we have another option than the two failed parties in charge now - and it's unlikely they'll quietly and gracefully allow that to happen.

(Obviously, I also only have a hammer, I just see a different nail. But I do admit what kind of hammer I have.)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

rehmwa

I suspect things won't get better at all until we have another option than the two failed parties in charge now - and it's unlikely they'll quietly and gracefully allow that to happen.

Because as long as the rules allow shenanigans, shenanigans will take place.

I'm completely unclear why so many people are against Federal solutions to certain issues. I don't mean they're against Federal regulations in a particular case, but simply as a matter of course.

To me, we could eliminate a HUGE amount of duplication of effort if we accepted that certain things are better dealt with at the Federal level. It seems to me that a lot of the same people who rail against "big government" end up arguing in favor of "even bigger government due to duplication of effort."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,433]

>I'm completely unclear why so many people are against Federal solutions to certain
>issues. I don't mean they're against Federal regulations in a particular case, but
>simply as a matter of course.

I'm against Federal solutions as a first line of defense for _any_ issue. Ideally, something that needs to be regulated is done at a personal level (like, say, yelling curses at people.) If that doesn't work, regulate it in the workplace, privately. If that doesn't work, pursue regulation at the city level. If that doesn't work, the state level. If that doesn't work, and there's still harm being done, THEN pursue Federal regulation.

There are a few exceptions - things that simply cannot be regulated at the state level, or cases where state regulations drive counterproductive behavior (like air pollution or airspace control.) But those are rare. Most issues are best regulated at the lowest possible level.

[quade 3]

billvon

>I'm completely unclear why so many people are against Federal solutions to certain
>issues. I don't mean they're against Federal regulations in a particular case, but
>simply as a matter of course.

I'm against Federal solutions as a first line of defense for _any_ issue. Ideally, something that needs to be regulated is done at a personal level (like, say, yelling curses at people.) If that doesn't work, regulate it in the workplace, privately. If that doesn't work, pursue regulation at the city level. If that doesn't work, the state level. If that doesn't work, and there's still harm being done, THEN pursue Federal regulation.

There are a few exceptions - things that simply cannot be regulated at the state level, or cases where state regulations drive counterproductive behavior (like air pollution or airspace control.) But those are rare. Most issues are best regulated at the lowest possible level.

While I agree with your "ideal" premise, we are talking about Federal elections. It's something that affects the entire country. To me it makes no sense whatsoever that each state has its own primary dates and voting methods, and in some cases those vary from county to county.

In any other country's elections, I think we'd question it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Your Constitutional amendment would further entrench the two party system. Since you won't give us any specifics on what you want, I'll have to assume it will say something like, "Any election conducted for the purpose of nominating a candidate for President must be held on March 15."

That would force 1) any potential third parties to organize in 50 states at the same time, which might be difficult for small parties, 2) the states to incorporate third parties into their primary system, 3) third parties to directly compete with the major parties, and 4) give state legislature indirect power over how any third party has to conduct their nominating process.

It's already hard enough for small parties to get any traction. Your Federal solution would make it impossible.

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

quade

***I suspect things won't get better at all until we have another option than the two failed parties in charge now - and it's unlikely they'll quietly and gracefully allow that to happen.

Because as long as the rules allow shenanigans, shenanigans will take place.

I'm completely unclear why so many people are against Federal solutions to certain issues. I don't mean they're against Federal regulations in a particular case, but simply as a matter of course.

To me, we could eliminate a HUGE amount of duplication of effort if we accepted that certain things are better dealt with at the Federal level. It seems to me that a lot of the same people who rail against "big government" end up arguing in favor of "even bigger government due to duplication of effort."

that's a fair way to present it, Quade.

I'm with Billvon's response on it (initial responses to anything have to be consistent with my general philosophy - refine from there, but I'll always start there). Though we are talking about some of the election being to vote in federal positions, the elections are still a state run endeavor - so leap frogging immediately to fed control is still too eager. Even more so for primaries as they are even further removed from fed level administration.

I also think my starting response, then, was accurate - I didn't mis-state your proposition, I understood it correctly as did the others. (though I'd take the snark down now if I could - or make it funnier so it didn't bite).

thanks

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

DanG

Your Federal solution would make it impossible.

not surprising - philosophically speaking, any Federal solutions would entrench the status quo more than pushing down to where change is possible....

it's the essence of finding the balance between social cooperation and authoritarianism (with its plus and minus) vs freedom (with its plus and minus) - and pretty much the content of most of the threads on this forum

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

DanG

Your Constitutional amendment would further entrench the two party system. Since you won't give us any specifics on what you want, I'll have to assume it will say something like, "Any election conducted for the purpose of nominating a candidate for President must be held on March 15."

That would force 1) any potential third parties to organize in 50 states at the same time, which might be difficult for small parties, 2) the states to incorporate third parties into their primary system, 3) third parties to directly compete with the major parties, and 4) give state legislature indirect power over how any third party has to conduct their nominating process.

It's already hard enough for small parties to get any traction. Your Federal solution would make it impossible.

I am reasonably certain there are countries which have MUCH tighter election cycles than the US does and somehow also have managed to have greater than two party systems.

Our elections would still be held at four year intervals. Parties would still have exactly as long to organize between elections as they do now.

Among the reasons 3rd parties have horrible track records is for some ridiculous reason they have a tendency to do almost nothing whatsoever from the general election to until about 12 months before the next one. Meanwhile, I can nearly guarantee the two major parties are already looking at 2020 and beyond.

3rd parties also tend to shoot for the Moon. They really, really, really want to be President, but tend to not give a shit about anything else. That's no way to build credibility. Where are the Libertarian mayors, state senators, governors, US Congressmen?

There are a few, but nowhere nearly enough to make even a small dent in reality.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,647]

quade

******Correct. It's left up to the individual states, which is why if there was a nation-wide change making the system uniform (and more intelligent), it would require a change to the Constitution.

It would instantly be seen as a "states rights" vs "federal government" fight. The smaller states which fight for early primaries reap huge financial gains from the current system (quadrennial influx of cash from advertising and media outlet) would get pissy. It would be ugly fast.

you are replying talking about the Electoral College to people talking about primaries

I'm not talking about just the Electoral Collage. I AM including the primaries. Go back and re-read Post #87 of this thread. There's no way to bring uniformity to the primary process as he is suggesting without some sort of Federal control of the process.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4821736#4821736

Disagree about primaries. A party can choose its candidate(s) any way it chooses. The government (state or federal) should not be telling political parties how to conduct their affairs. A candidate is not a Constitutionally defined office.

There isn't even a Constitutional requirement to hold a primary at all. It can all be done in smoke filled rooms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,647]

DJL

It's unfortunate that the political parties even have any control over how candidates are selected. The system is broken and the only people who can change it are the ones who utilize its deficiencies for their own candidate.

The parties are EXACTLY who should get to choose their own candidates. Why should non-party-members be involved at all? You don't allow non-citizens to vote in the general election, or non stockholders to vote in corporation business.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,647]

quade

I am reasonably certain there are countries which have MUCH tighter election cycles than the US does and somehow also have managed to have greater than two party systems.

True, but the majority of those also have proportional representation or run-off systems rather than winner-take-all systems.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

kallend

There isn't even a Constitutional requirement to hold a primary at all. It can all be done in smoke filled rooms.

Right, again, so, if we want to do something like AlanS is suggesting, it would require it because that WOULD be telling them what to do.

I don't think people liked the idea of the smoke filled rooms and I don't see us going back to the smoke filled rooms of the past. I think they liked the idea of the voters having a say, which meant the primaries got attached to state elections, which meant shenanigans ensued.

Want to change that? Guess what ends up needing to be done.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,433]

>Want to change that? Guess what ends up needing to be done.

Simple. Refuse to vote for anyone chosen in smoke filled rooms. That is both necessary and sufficient to ensure that it does not happen.

[quade 3]

kallend

True, but the majority of those also have proportional representation or run-off systems rather than winner-take-all systems.

Yep. And guess what it would take to make that happen across the US?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver