Eliminate the Primaries

[Dadoalex]

Prior to 1968 only 28 states in total held presidential primaries.

Then the Democrats screwed the pooch at the 68 convention by nominating a guy who'd won no primaries.

The response of course was that nearly every state decided to hold primaries with a few sticking to the caucus.

Pretty fair. Or so it seemed.

Then the primaries became a method of kicking incumbents to the curb for failing to respond to the extremists in the parties. With the GOP this served to drive the party to the extremist mess we see today.

The Democratic party is affected as well but because there are fewer areas dominated by Democratic extremists this strategy hasn't worked as well or as broadly and, in most cases, the Democratic extremists are gone after one term.

Primaries are dominated by the party loyalists and, since the early 90s, by party extremists. We can't keep the extremists from voting so there are only a few available options.

Open Primaries
Ranked choice open primaries
Get more people to the polls for primaries to limit the extremist impact
Eliminate primaries and go back to the "smoke filled rooms"

The primaries at every political level have delivered more and more fringe candidates to the general and, within the GOP, the extremists are beloved.

Like Nazis, there's Gosar
Like stupidity you got Kennedy(LA) and Tuberville(AL)
Like racism, take your pick...

Despite their obvious inability to do the job for which they were elected, they keep winning the primaries because the extremists like their crazy.

I like the first two options. Open and Ranked Choice Open primaries. But the success depends on the integrity of the parties and, let's face it, integrity on both sides is in short supply.

Therefore, let's get rid of the primaries and put politics back in the smoke filled rooms where it belongs.

 

[Independentthinker]

Prior to 1968 only 28 states in total held presidential primaries.

Then the Democrats screwed the pooch at the 68 convention by nominating a guy who'd won no primaries.

The response of course was that nearly every state decided to hold primaries with a few sticking to the caucus.

Pretty fair. Or so it seemed.

Then the primaries became a method of kicking incumbents to the curb for failing to respond to the extremists in the parties. With the GOP this served to drive the party to the extremist mess we see today.

The Democratic party is affected as well but because there are fewer areas dominated by Democratic extremists this strategy hasn't worked as well or as broadly and, in most cases, the Democratic extremists are gone after one term.

Primaries are dominated by the party loyalists and, since the early 90s, by party extremists. We can't keep the extremists from voting so there are only a few available options.

Open Primaries
Ranked choice open primaries
Get more people to the polls for primaries to limit the extremist impact
Eliminate primaries and go back to the "smoke filled rooms"

The primaries at every political level have delivered more and more fringe candidates to the general and, within the GOP, the extremists are beloved.

Like Nazis, there's Gosar
Like stupidity you got Kennedy(LA) and Tuberville(AL)
Like racism, take your pick...

Despite their obvious inability to do the job for which they were elected, they keep winning the primaries because the extremists like their crazy.

I like the first two options. Open and Ranked Choice Open primaries. But the success depends on the integrity of the parties and, let's face it, integrity on both sides is in short supply.

Therefore, let's get rid of the primaries and put politics back in the smoke filled rooms where it belongs.

Translation: You're scared shitless Trump will be the nominee and you don't know if Biden is good enough to beat him.

 

[BackAgain]

Prior to 1968 only 28 states in total held presidential primaries.

Then the Democrats screwed the pooch at the 68 convention by nominating a guy who'd won no primaries.

The response of course was that nearly every state decided to hold primaries with a few sticking to the caucus.

Pretty fair. Or so it seemed.

Then the primaries became a method of kicking incumbents to the curb for failing to respond to the extremists in the parties. With the GOP this served to drive the party to the extremist mess we see today.

The Democratic party is affected as well but because there are fewer areas dominated by Democratic extremists this strategy hasn't worked as well or as broadly and, in most cases, the Democratic extremists are gone after one term.

Primaries are dominated by the party loyalists and, since the early 90s, by party extremists. We can't keep the extremists from voting so there are only a few available options.

Open Primaries
Ranked choice open primaries
Get more people to the polls for primaries to limit the extremist impact
Eliminate primaries and go back to the "smoke filled rooms"

The primaries at every political level have delivered more and more fringe candidates to the general and, within the GOP, the extremists are beloved.

Like Nazis, there's Gosar
Like stupidity you got Kennedy(LA) and Tuberville(AL)
Like racism, take your pick...

Despite their obvious inability to do the job for which they were elected, they keep winning the primaries because the extremists like their crazy.

I like the first two options. Open and Ranked Choice Open primaries. But the success depends on the integrity of the parties and, let's face it, integrity on both sides is in short supply.

Therefore, let's get rid of the primaries and put politics back in the smoke filled rooms where it belongs.

The fact that you make such moronic suggestions is very telling.

Also, the fact that it is you making those asshole suggestions serves as conclusive proof that they are horrible ideas.

 

[Lemmi]

Trump will be the Republican nominee regardless if they hold a primary or not. Some people are just too dumb to realize when they're being scammed.

 

[Dadoalex]

Translation: You're scared shitless Trump will be the nominee and you don't know if Biden is good enough to beat him.

Yu speka de engwich?

 

[Dadoalex]

Trump will be the Republican nominee regardless if they hold a primary or not. Some people are just too dumb to realize when they're being scammed.

This isn't about Trump. He's a symptom, not the disease.

1/3 of the electorate is DEM or GOP
Generally less than 1/3 of the electorate votes in the primaries.
So, within the GOP
1/3 vote in primaries
50% +1 to win
Ergo 1/6 of the Republican base chooses it's candidates.
50%+1 to win in the general
so the math says that the people in Congress, the President, and every elected position down to dogcatcher are elected by 1/12 of the electorate or 8.3%.

Isn't it reasonable to pursue a more representative set of representatives?

 

[Rogue AI]

Prior to 1968 only 28 states in total held presidential primaries.

Then the Democrats screwed the pooch at the 68 convention by nominating a guy who'd won no primaries.

The response of course was that nearly every state decided to hold primaries with a few sticking to the caucus.

Pretty fair. Or so it seemed.

Then the primaries became a method of kicking incumbents to the curb for failing to respond to the extremists in the parties. With the GOP this served to drive the party to the extremist mess we see today.

The Democratic party is affected as well but because there are fewer areas dominated by Democratic extremists this strategy hasn't worked as well or as broadly and, in most cases, the Democratic extremists are gone after one term.

Primaries are dominated by the party loyalists and, since the early 90s, by party extremists. We can't keep the extremists from voting so there are only a few available options.

Open Primaries
Ranked choice open primaries
Get more people to the polls for primaries to limit the extremist impact
Eliminate primaries and go back to the "smoke filled rooms"

The primaries at every political level have delivered more and more fringe candidates to the general and, within the GOP, the extremists are beloved.

Like Nazis, there's Gosar
Like stupidity you got Kennedy(LA) and Tuberville(AL)
Like racism, take your pick...

Despite their obvious inability to do the job for which they were elected, they keep winning the primaries because the extremists like their crazy.

I like the first two options. Open and Ranked Choice Open primaries. But the success depends on the integrity of the parties and, let's face it, integrity on both sides is in short supply.

Therefore, let's get rid of the primaries and put politics back in the smoke filled rooms where it belongs.

Don't worry bro, Democrats just fix their primaries, you don't really get a choice anyway. Get back to grazing with the other sheep.

 

[Dadoalex]

Don't worry bro, Democrats just fix their primaries, you don't really get a choice anyway. Get back to grazing with the other sheep.

And here's the intellectual side of MAGADUMIA making its ignorance known.

 

[Nostra]

The Dimwinger party already did when they announced no debates.

 

[Rogue AI]

And here's the intellectual side of MAGADUMIA making its ignorance known.

Your entire party is an infestation of extremism. Do you actually think anyone takes you seriously? Wow.

 

[Dadoalex]

Your entire party is an infestation of extremism. Do you actually think anyone takes you seriously? Wow.

Reflection.
and stupidity.

What a combination!!!!

 

[candycorn]

Prior to 1968 only 28 states in total held presidential primaries.

Then the Democrats screwed the pooch at the 68 convention by nominating a guy who'd won no primaries.

The response of course was that nearly every state decided to hold primaries with a few sticking to the caucus.

Pretty fair. Or so it seemed.

Then the primaries became a method of kicking incumbents to the curb for failing to respond to the extremists in the parties. With the GOP this served to drive the party to the extremist mess we see today.

The Democratic party is affected as well but because there are fewer areas dominated by Democratic extremists this strategy hasn't worked as well or as broadly and, in most cases, the Democratic extremists are gone after one term.

Primaries are dominated by the party loyalists and, since the early 90s, by party extremists. We can't keep the extremists from voting so there are only a few available options.

Open Primaries
Ranked choice open primaries
Get more people to the polls for primaries to limit the extremist impact
Eliminate primaries and go back to the "smoke filled rooms"

The primaries at every political level have delivered more and more fringe candidates to the general and, within the GOP, the extremists are beloved.

Like Nazis, there's Gosar
Like stupidity you got Kennedy(LA) and Tuberville(AL)
Like racism, take your pick...

Despite their obvious inability to do the job for which they were elected, they keep winning the primaries because the extremists like their crazy.

I like the first two options. Open and Ranked Choice Open primaries. But the success depends on the integrity of the parties and, let's face it, integrity on both sides is in short supply.

Therefore, let's get rid of the primaries and put politics back in the smoke filled rooms where it belongs.

Well you can't really do any of the above on a Presidential level. No way a slate of electors in Alabama will honor the wishes of the people (if they were to all take truth serum and vote for Biden) and vote for Joe. So you will have to keep slates of electors for each political party. That is our electoral college. Usually the discussion devolves quickly into now getting rid of the EC. This is a bad idea if the alternative is to go with a straight popular vote nationwide. If you do that; no presidential candidate who plans on winning would ever stop in a town with fewer than 400,000 people or whatever. Going by the often mentioned "proportional" representation (determined by congressional districts) is also hooey because these are drawn by the state legislatures to favor whoever is holding the pen. I would be happy if we forced the president elect to both win 270 electoral votes as well as winning the overall nationwide popular vote. If no one candidate does both; the House decides as laid out by the 12th amendment.

As for every other federal slot? I'm open to getting rid of the party primaries which are often just formalities. One primary per state. If someone gets 50% of the vote, they win and are sworn in the following January 2 or 3. If they don't get 50% of the vote, they and the 2nd place winner have their "run off" on election day; the Tuesday following the first Monday in November later that year. List the candidates alphabetically on the ballot; no party name next to them and let the fur fly. The States did a great dis-service to their people when they let the parties run the primaries.

That being said; I think it has worked out good in most cases. But a better system would be to have everyone on the same ballot and let the fur fly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Prior to 1968 only 28 states in total held presidential primaries.

Then the Democrats screwed the pooch at the 68 convention by nominating a guy who'd won no primaries.

The response of course was that nearly every state decided to hold primaries with a few sticking to the caucus.

Pretty fair. Or so it seemed.

Then the primaries became a method of kicking incumbents to the curb for failing to respond to the extremists in the parties. With the GOP this served to drive the party to the extremist mess we see today.

The Democratic party is affected as well but because there are fewer areas dominated by Democratic extremists this strategy hasn't worked as well or as broadly and, in most cases, the Democratic extremists are gone after one term.

Primaries are dominated by the party loyalists and, since the early 90s, by party extremists. We can't keep the extremists from voting so there are only a few available options.

Open Primaries
Ranked choice open primaries
Get more people to the polls for primaries to limit the extremist impact
Eliminate primaries and go back to the "smoke filled rooms"

The primaries at every political level have delivered more and more fringe candidates to the general and, within the GOP, the extremists are beloved.

Like Nazis, there's Gosar
Like stupidity you got Kennedy(LA) and Tuberville(AL)
Like racism, take your pick...

Despite their obvious inability to do the job for which they were elected, they keep winning the primaries because the extremists like their crazy.

I like the first two options. Open and Ranked Choice Open primaries. But the success depends on the integrity of the parties and, let's face it, integrity on both sides is in short supply.

Therefore, let's get rid of the primaries and put politics back in the smoke filled rooms where it belongs.

Clinton stole the primary from sanders

 

[presonorek]

Prior to 1968 only 28 states in total held presidential primaries.

Then the Democrats screwed the pooch at the 68 convention by nominating a guy who'd won no primaries.

The response of course was that nearly every state decided to hold primaries with a few sticking to the caucus.

Pretty fair. Or so it seemed.

Then the primaries became a method of kicking incumbents to the curb for failing to respond to the extremists in the parties. With the GOP this served to drive the party to the extremist mess we see today.

The Democratic party is affected as well but because there are fewer areas dominated by Democratic extremists this strategy hasn't worked as well or as broadly and, in most cases, the Democratic extremists are gone after one term.

Primaries are dominated by the party loyalists and, since the early 90s, by party extremists. We can't keep the extremists from voting so there are only a few available options.

Open Primaries
Ranked choice open primaries
Get more people to the polls for primaries to limit the extremist impact
Eliminate primaries and go back to the "smoke filled rooms"

The primaries at every political level have delivered more and more fringe candidates to the general and, within the GOP, the extremists are beloved.

Like Nazis, there's Gosar
Like stupidity you got Kennedy(LA) and Tuberville(AL)
Like racism, take your pick...

Despite their obvious inability to do the job for which they were elected, they keep winning the primaries because the extremists like their crazy.

I like the first two options. Open and Ranked Choice Open primaries. But the success depends on the integrity of the parties and, let's face it, integrity on both sides is in short supply.

Therefore, let's get rid of the primaries and put politics back in the smoke filled rooms where it belongs.

Presidential primaries really don’t hold any weight. The delegates at the Republican National Committee pick a candidate to represent the Republican Party. That’s a pretty good system I guess.

 

[Dadoalex]

Well you can't really do any of the above on a Presidential level. No way a slate of electors in Alabama will honor the wishes of the people (if they were to all take truth serum and vote for Biden) and vote for Joe. So you will have to keep slates of electors for each political party. That is our electoral college. Usually the discussion devolves quickly into now getting rid of the EC. This is a bad idea if the alternative is to go with a straight popular vote nationwide. If you do that; no presidential candidate who plans on winning would ever stop in a town with fewer than 400,000 people or whatever. Going by the often mentioned "proportional" representation (determined by congressional districts) is also hooey because these are drawn by the state legislatures to favor whoever is holding the pen. I would be happy if we forced the president elect to both win 270 electoral votes as well as winning the overall nationwide popular vote. If no one candidate does both; the House decides as laid out by the 12th amendment.

As for every other federal slot? I'm open to getting rid of the party primaries which are often just formalities. One primary per state. If someone gets 50% of the vote, they win and are sworn in the following January 2 or 3. If they don't get 50% of the vote, they and the 2nd place winner have their "run off" on election day; the Tuesday following the first Monday in November later that year. List the candidates alphabetically on the ballot; no party name next to them and let the fur fly. The States did a great dis-service to their people when they let the parties run the primaries.

That being said; I think it has worked out good in most cases. But a better system would be to have everyone on the same ballot and let the fur fly.

I believe you've misunderstood.

I'm discussing the primaries at all levels not the generals.

 

[Dadoalex]

Clinton stole the primary from sanders

Irrelevant to the thread and

She beat sanders by 4M votes.

 

[Dadoalex]

Presidential primaries really don’t hold any weight. The delegates at the Republican National Committee pick a candidate to represent the Republican Party. That’s a pretty good system I guess.

The primaries select the delegates.
and if you've watched the trajectory of the GOP over the last dozen years you must realize that the abuse of the primary system is going to lead to the demise of the party.

The electorate is not, if you'll pardon the expression, bat shit crazy. Some parts of the electorate in some parts of the country but as the GOP drives further and further toward the cliff people will jump ship and even overwhelming primary victories and "YUGE" won't overcome the losses.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Irrelevant to the thread and

She beat sanders by 4M votes.

Shove it up your ass it's relevant because Clinton and the DNC stole the primary from sanders

 

[22lcidw]

Well you can't really do any of the above on a Presidential level. No way a slate of electors in Alabama will honor the wishes of the people (if they were to all take truth serum and vote for Biden) and vote for Joe. So you will have to keep slates of electors for each political party. That is our electoral college. Usually the discussion devolves quickly into now getting rid of the EC. This is a bad idea if the alternative is to go with a straight popular vote nationwide. If you do that; no presidential candidate who plans on winning would ever stop in a town with fewer than 400,000 people or whatever. Going by the often mentioned "proportional" representation (determined by congressional districts) is also hooey because these are drawn by the state legislatures to favor whoever is holding the pen. I would be happy if we forced the president elect to both win 270 electoral votes as well as winning the overall nationwide popular vote. If no one candidate does both; the House decides as laid out by the 12th amendment.

As for every other federal slot? I'm open to getting rid of the party primaries which are often just formalities. One primary per state. If someone gets 50% of the vote, they win and are sworn in the following January 2 or 3. If they don't get 50% of the vote, they and the 2nd place winner have their "run off" on election day; the Tuesday following the first Monday in November later that year. List the candidates alphabetically on the ballot; no party name next to them and let the fur fly. The States did a great dis-service to their people when they let the parties run the primaries.

That being said; I think it has worked out good in most cases. But a better system would be to have everyone on the same ballot and let the fur fly.

Progs rule as dictators. 50.1% of the vote is a democracy dictatorship mandate.

 

[Dadoalex]

Shove it up your ass it's relevant because Clinton and the DNC stole the primary from sanders

Irrelevant to the thread and she beat Sanders by 4M votes.

Try a little history today.