Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Apr 2016, 6:44 am

The US, being a duopoly, offers only two viable candidates for president in the general election. There are more choices, in the recent Republican circus 17, in the primary elections...
But is this a good way to select candidates? Since Donald Trump has all but sowed up the Republican nomination and Hillary is the presumptive Democratic nominee after the 5 states last night ... its worth wondering what got them elected.
In the case of Donald Trump it was a third to half of the following ... In New York he got most of the delegates with only 4 and half percent of the eligible voting population.... (524.000 votes). Clinton got 1, 054,000. (about 9%) .
And this turnout reflects what? In the Republican primaries,Nate Silver the low turnout in the more recent primaries to the discouragement of anti-Trump voters.Discourage at the prospect of helping beat Trump and discouragment at the quality of the alternatives to Trump...
Would the system benefit from a change to a national primary vote on one day, with the outcome determined by majority .... and if no one gets a majority a runoff between the top two?(like France)
Certainly the election cycle could be truncated to a national vote in April followed by a run off in May... And its got to feel and be more democratic than the caucus system or what passes for a primary in Pennsylvania...



Republican Primary Voting
STATE TURNOUT AS SHARE OF VOTING-ELIGIBLE POPULATION
New Hampshire 27.8%
Wisconsin 25.6
Alabama 23.9
Ohio 22.3
Missouri 20.7
South Carolina 20.3
Idaho 19.7
Arkansas 19.2
Mississippi 19.1
Georgia 18.8
Michigan 17.8
Tennessee 17.6
Virginia 17.0
Oklahoma 16.5
Texas 16.4
Florida 16.3
North Carolina 15.8
Pennsylvania 15.8
Illinois 15.3
Massachusetts 12.8
Vermont 12.5
Arizona 11.4
Maryland 10.6
Delaware 10.0
Louisiana 8.9
Connecticut 8.7
Rhode Island 7.8
New York 6.4
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its ... n-to-lose/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 27 Apr 2016, 7:18 am

What does the Dem numbers look like?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Apr 2016, 11:20 am

Republican turnout rates are far better than Democrat rates. (this year)
Republican rates this year are among their highest rates (at least in the last 30+ years)
Democrat turnout is actually pretty low compared to most past years
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... 08-record/

How is this a bad thing?
Ricky mentions Trump gaining "only" 4-1/2% of the New York eligible voting population and at least seems to try and compare it to Hillary gaining 9% Yet Dem rates are lower than Republican rates and his number here is more than a little misleading (to say the least)
Trump got 4-1/2% to Hillary's 9%
But in New York 63% are Democrats while only 30% are Republicans
so simple math tells you Trump actually did slightly BETTER than Hillary did in terms of turnout support!

I honestly don't understand what he's trying to get at but his numbers are at the very least biased.
So we have a poor turnout during primaries, heck, turnout for the presidential election seldom goes much over 50%. If people don't care, then it simply allows those that DO care to have a more vital role in the process, those who do care are more likely to know what's going on and in turn make this a better way of deciding your candidate than some other way that has greater turnout now doesn't it? (for both parties, this should not be a party-centric issue as he seems to trying to do)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Apr 2016, 12:56 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-e ... SKCN0XO0ZR
More than half of American voters believe that the system U.S. political parties use to pick their candidates for the White House is "rigged" and more than two-thirds want to see the process changed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.


tom
How is this a bad thing?

well, its a bad thing because a very small sub set of the populace narrows down the electoral choices to only 2 viable candidates and then only then the general population takes an interest.
Its a bad thing because its seen as a "rigged" or illegitimate system by the populace.
Its a bad thing because its strings out the election process to over a year....
Its a bad thing because it greatly increases the importance of certain States (Iowa and New Hampshire) whose unique demographics end up affecting the viability of candidates who might appeal to the broader electorate as found in more populous states.
Its a bad thing because the system isn't well understood, and whatever system is used should be transparent.
Its a bad thing because narrow geographic contests held over months end up being elections where party machinery can dominate, whereas national contests are more properly conducted as contests of ideas and policy.
Its a bad thing, because the small groups who do participate in primary voting probably don't reflect the general electorate they are a subset of .... and therefore the eventual candidates chosen may be less desirable..

From your source:
But looking at overall turnout rates since 1980, certain trends were clear: Combined major-party turnout fell from 25.7% in 1980 to 14.7% in 2004, before rebounding in 2008. Much of that was due to declining turnout in Democratic primaries; GOP turnout, by contrast, was relatively stable from 1980 through 2012, averaging about 10% in years with contested nominations and dipping to 7% or lower in uncontested years.
But even in relatively high-turnout years such as 2008 – and, so far, 2016 – primaries attract far fewer voters than general elections, even though (barring a contested convention) they determine whom voters get to choose from come November. In 2012, for instance, 129.1 million Americans, or 53.6% of the estimated voting-age population, cast ballots in the presidential election, versus fewer than 28 million in that year’s primaries. In 2008, 131.4 million people (56.9% of the estimated voting-age population) voted for president in the general election, more than twice the “record” number of primary voters that year.


This last point is important. Neither Trump nor Clinton, are enthusiastically supported by the majority of their party. Trump is despised by many in his party. Clinton, unloved by many in her party. (Though more respected. ) In a national contest, based on one vote per voter and not using delegates or electoral votes ..... perhaps Sanders would win in a Democratic vote as shown in current polling.
Perhaps Trump would be running off versus Rubio .
But the nature of the primaries saw Trump get 34% of the vote in Florida and all Florida's delegates... (The system is rigged to his benefit).
Trump is going to win because a third of the vote got him an out sized reward in the early going... And because only the really angry bothered to get up and vote.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Apr 2016, 1:24 pm

You can't complain about what people think only when it suits you. Here you want us to think it's important that people think the system is rigged yet in other threads you complain that so many think Obama is a Muslim. Who cares what some idiots think?

Or do you want us to be like you?
You seem to insist we have health care the same as Canada, similar gun laws, similar voting id laws, now similar multiparty government. Guess what, Canada is very nice, Europe is very nice, insert country here is very nice but we do things differently here and guess what ...it's nice here as well!

And of your reasons, most make little sense
the "importance" of each state is not increased or decreased, it's based on population and our electoral "college" helps assure it's not population ONLY, it really works VERY well and uniquely...because some don't "get it" does not mean it's not transparent, it simply means some people are stupid.

and you want to complain Trump and Clinton are not supported by their parties. But then you tell us how the political machine runs things as they see fit, excuse me but what one is it you wish to complain about. It seems to me it's working quite well and the people are getting who they voted for. I happen to not like either one of them, but that's how it works in a Democracy now isn't it?

And you further complain about Trump
He's getting in because of the early states? Excuse me but didn't he just win a slew of states just yesterday and New York a week before that? Those are a whole BUNCH of votes and all quite late in the process. Again, you can say whatever you wish but it's not making any sense when you cherry pick what suits your position.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Apr 2016, 1:30 pm

further
You complain Trump got only 35% of Florida's votes but all of their delegates.
But you fail to complain about Cruz getting all of Colorado's delegates, at that time it was simply said that he outworked Trump and understood the system while Trump didn't run "right".
What one is it?

and how about Pennsylvania? Trump crushed his opponents there but could possibly gain very few delegates there. Because that's how the people in the Republican party in that State want it. Each states party decides how they want to run things. It's about the PARTY and not about the general population, never was and never will be nor should it be. Heck, why no complaints about Hillary getting all those "super delegates" that screwed Sanders?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Apr 2016, 3:04 pm

Tom
And of your reasons, most make little sense
the "importance" of each state is not increased or decreased, it's based on population and our electoral "college" helps assure it's not population ONLY,

Which is it Tom.... "based on population or "its not population"?

But actually the electoral college is not based on population as much as you think..... (If thats what you think...)

Unequal voting power depending on where you live
The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.
For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.


https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/f ... 1450119297

tom
. It seems to me it's working quite well and the people are getting who they voted for

Yes Tom...to an extent.
Except that in winner take all states, somebody who voted for a loser didn't get any representation at the convention.
Is that really working?
Isn't Trump complaining that the rules are rigged?

tom
And you further complain about Trump
He's getting in because of the early states? Excuse me but didn't he just win a slew of states just yesterday and New York a week before that?

I'm not "complaining" about Trump. I'm noting that hes been winning with 30 to 35% of the vote in those early states. Where arcane distribution of delegate rules gave him most... not a proportionate return for his votes...
If he weren't able to win those early states with a third of the votes...would he have been so far ahead? Momentum has a lot to do with the primary election process....
In a nation wide vote, there's really no such a thing as momentum. Everybody makes their judgement at the same time.

tom
and how about Pennsylvania? Trump crushed his opponents there but could possibly gain very few delegates there.

Yes. Pretty screwed up you'll agree? And worth ditching for a system with more transparency, and greater democracy?
I have a feeling that after November the republican party may re-examine the process and perhaps look to revise.... With the hope of achieving a better candidate with broader support.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Apr 2016, 6:34 am

The electoral college helps give smaller states a bit more influence so large population centers do not dominate our politics, Population is the most important factor but as I said, the EC helps balance things so it is not purely population only (as i said)

Your winner take all meaning other votes don't count "problem" gee, I didn't vote for Obama the last presidential election, so my vote didn't matter?
No kidding!!!!!
Winner take all is how the party in that state wants it, that's how they do it. This is not a general election, it's how the PARTY wants things, it's like a club and that club can do things the way they like. Democrats have no say in the Republican club and vice-versa, that's the way they have it set up. You want to complain about something that works just fine because it's not like yours.

This is nothing more than complaining for complainings sake ...you sound like my Mother-in-Law, you really do. And Pennsylvania, no I would not agree it's pretty screwed up. Again, that is how that party wants things in their state. It is not how I would do it but that's what they want and they can change it if they wish but it works for them and I am not going to suggest they change the way THEY LIKE IT just because Rickyp doesn't like it.

And still, while you complain about the system, why is it you focus on the Republican party only? Nothing about how similar the Dems are, nothing about their screwy "super delegates",(and no, I have no problem if that is how they want it but hey, yes it IS "odd") only complaining about Republicans? When you focus on the one party only while ignoring the other, your "problem" is trivialized a great deal now isn't it?

Let's start complaining about how Canada does things, oh wait, nobody cares! (or maybe it's just prefect and we can't complain?)
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 28 Apr 2016, 11:14 am

The primary system is a stupid way to select candidates, buit not for the reason that Ricky is banging on about. Ultimately it doesn't matter about fairness, proportion of the voting population who selected a candidate etc. These are internal party elections and can operate however the hell they like without it being in any way anti-democratic. How many people were involved in selecting Justin Trudeau as the candidate for his riding ? I'm willing to bet it was far fewer than the numbers who have voted in any of the state primaries this year. And it doesn't matter.

The problem with the primary system is that it drags on waaaaaay too long. US politicians are involved in a near permanent re-election campaign pretty much from the moment they get re-elected in the first place. In my opinion this is one of the primary drivers of the gridlock and political dysfunction that seems to be the norm in Washington these days. It's also a big driver of corruption, because the sums needed are enormous and have to be raised primarily from vested interest lobby groups or wealthy individuals.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Apr 2016, 11:18 am

tom
it's how the PARTY wants things, it's like a club and that club can do things the way they like.

Yes they can.
But what I asked originally (I'm not complaining, I asked a rhetorical question)
was...
Would the system benefit from a change to a national primary vote on one day, with the outcome determined by majority .... and if no one gets a majority a runoff between the top two?(like France
)
and responded to your "is this a bad thing "? with
well, its a bad thing because a very small sub set of the populace narrows down the electoral choices to only 2 viable candidates and then only then the general population takes an interest.
Its a bad thing because its seen as a "rigged" or illegitimate system by the populace.
Its a bad thing because its strings out the election process to over a year....
Its a bad thing because it greatly increases the importance of certain States (Iowa and New Hampshire) whose unique demographics end up affecting the viability of candidates who might appeal to the broader electorate as found in more populous states.
Its a bad thing because the system isn't well understood, and whatever system is used should be transparent.
Its a bad thing because narrow geographic contests held over months end up being elections where party machinery can dominate, whereas national contests are more properly conducted as contests of ideas and policy.
Its a bad thing, because the small groups who do participate in primary voting probably don't reflect the general electorate they are a subset of .... and therefore the eventual candidates chosen may be less desirable
..
And I'm thinking that for these reasons the parties might decide to change things....
That and ending up with Donald Trump.

But thanks for your thoughtful responses...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Apr 2016, 11:28 am

sass
These are internal party elections and can operate however the hell they like without it being in any way anti-democratic.

yes of course. But the primary system was developed to make the system more democratic and invite more public participation.
The impetus for national adoption of the binding primary election was the chaotic 1968 Democratic National Convention. Vice President Hubert Humphrey secured the nomination despite not winning a single primary under his own name. After this, a Democratic National Committee-commissioned panel led by Senator George McGovern – the McGovern–Fraser Commission – recommended that states adopt new rules to assure wider participation.


And if the public response to the Republican campaign is currently that |Whoever wins the most votes" should win the nomination... (recent polling), and that the current system is often seen by the public and certain candidates as rigged.... why maintain it?

Wouldn't a national primary solve the length of the campaign? And, if the party decided to organize the pre-primary period around aa month or so of sponsored debates, town halls and discussions, the cost of the campaign could be greatly controlled. And perhaps more substantive.
Although the republican debates may be an indicator that maybe not...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Apr 2016, 12:41 pm

Since we have brought up Canada a few times.
How is the US system unfair in the least when compared to Canada? We actually choose who we want for President, it's not determined by the party.

Some people are confused, some are angry, some think it's rigged but they get to chose and you complain it's bad. Nope, we chose our leader and I think those of you who have him chosen for you are unfair.

As far as the time allocated
Yes it takes a long while in the States but is that a bad thing? You can argue the more information known, the better and the longer it takes (within reason and yes, maybe the US is beyond "reasonable") the more likely things can not be hidden as easily. Rushing through these things is also problematic. We also KNOW how long it will take versus places like Canada where this varies each and every time.

I do tend to agree the US takes too much time! But I also prefer too long vs too short.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Apr 2016, 2:27 pm

Sass
How many people were involved in selecting Justin Trudeau as the candidate for his riding ? I'm willing to bet it was far fewer than the numbers who have voted in any of the state primaries this year. And it doesn't matter.

Since you asked and Tom demanded...
I'll assume you were referring to the leadership campaign and not his local parliamentary riding. That's a lot different and the riding nomination has nothing to do with him being leader..
For the record:
130,774 Liberal Party members and supporters registered to vote in the election[16] of almost 300,000 who were eligible.[17] General voting took place from April 7 to April 14, 2013, by preferential ballot online and by phone. Each electoral district was allocated 100 points with points in a district allocated in proportion to each candidate by the number of first preference votes received. All points were then aggregated nationally for a "national count". If no candidate received 15,401 points on the first count, then the candidate with the least number of points would be eliminated and his/her votes are distributed in each electoral district among the remaining leadership contestants according to the next preference indicated. This process would then continue until one candidate has more than 15,401 points.[18] Trudeau was selected on the first ballot.

Does it matter? well, the results of the process was the election of a leader who had very broad support receiving over 80% of the votes. Plus he's been a remarkable electoral success and remains very popular with very high favor ability ratings.
even so, Trudeau wants to change the system to a national primary that will include more than just members, but also anyone willing to "register" as a Liberal supporter...though no ones sure what that means yet... Still the next Liberal process is a long way out.
Generally all the parties are moving to widen voter participation and modernize with internet voting... Mostly to generate public interest and to elect leaders that are perceived as more legitimate.

Tom
Some people are confused, some are angry, some think it's rigged but they get to chose and you complain it's bad.

If a significant people are confused, angry and think its rigged, is that a good thing? Is it healthy for a political party to have people who are invested in the process, complain about the process?

tom
Yes it takes a long while in the States but is that a bad thing?

this guy thinks so.
sass
The problem with the primary system is that it drags on waaaaaay too long. US politicians are involved in a near permanent re-election campaign pretty much from the moment they get re-elected in the first place. In my opinion this is one of the primary drivers of the gridlock and political dysfunction that seems to be the norm in Washington these days. It's also a big driver of corruption, because the sums needed are enormous and have to be raised primarily from vested interest lobby groups or wealthy individuals
.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 28 Apr 2016, 3:30 pm

Ricky, what I actually said was how many voted for him as the candidate in his riding. Having looked it up, it seems there are only 78000 registered voters in his riding. I'm willing to bet that it was only a few hundred of these who took part in Liberal party candidate selection. The vote for party leader is an apples and oranges thing.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Apr 2016, 4:52 am

Sassenach wrote:Ricky, what I actually said was how many voted for him as the candidate in his riding. Having looked it up, it seems there are only 78000 registered voters in his riding. I'm willing to bet that it was only a few hundred of these who took part in Liberal party candidate selection. The vote for party leader is an apples and oranges thing.

Well, that is an analogy to the Congressional primaries. His election as leader of the Liberals is more analogous to the Presidential primaries.

The parties can choose how they want to pick their candidates. However, in much of the US, it is also tied up with the state-run election process. Caucuses are less democratic (in that they tend to be party-only and use arcane delegation structures), but open and even many closed primaries use the electoral structures. Also, the two main parties have managed to get a lock on ballot access to the final votes in many places, making it harder for third parties to break through, and meaning that the anti-establishment/third way movements (such as the Tea Party or the Berndogs) use the primaries for one party or another.

I agree with you, Sass, that the process is too long. House Reps have a 2 year term. The second year is all elections (primaries, usually there is a Senatorial, Gubernatorial or Presidential election in parallel), and the first is increasingly important for electioneering - satisfying those who got you there to retain support, gearing up for a 12 month campaign, securing funding etc).

For Senators and their 6 year terms it is less of an issue, but it seems now that even 4 years for a President is not enough - and almost as soon as a re-elected President renews his oath he's a "lame duck" and the hunt begins for his successor.

I find that actually the Democrats have more problematic primary systems - the superdelegates who pledge early, the way in New York it was possible for the party to have blocked Sanders' ballot line, the greater use of arcane processes in states who caucus...

But Trump's success (so far) will probably lead to the Republicans wanting to make their systems more like that, rather than less - especially if he does win the nomination and tank in November. The last set of changes they made were in reaction to Romney's long hard slog, and they also don't want a brokered convention normally (as desperate as they may be this time).

I Don't think there is a "right way" to elect a party leader. Too democratic and you risk someone who can't work with their senior colleagues (Corbyn springs to mind). Too closed and you just get the insiders to the exclusion of wider views.