A better system for picking presidential candidates

[longknife]

By: Michael Barone 7/19/2013

You can get agreement from almost all points on the political spectrum that the worst aspect of our political system is the presidential nomination process. It is perhaps no coincidence that it is the one part of the system not treated in the Constitution.

That’s because the Founding Fathers abhorred political parties and hoped that presidents would be selected by something like an elite consensus. But we have political parties, the oldest and third oldest in the world, and they are not going away.

From A better system for picking presidential candidates | Human Events

I read the entire article and came to this conclusion: the current system sucks. Something has to be done to fix it. And, I don't think the Dems or GOP will do anything! Maybe one – or all – of the third parties will show the way and pick up some media support [good luck].

 

[Erand7899]

By: Michael Barone 7/19/2013

You can get agreement from almost all points on the political spectrum that the worst aspect of our political system is the presidential nomination process. It is perhaps no coincidence that it is the one part of the system not treated in the Constitution.

That’s because the Founding Fathers abhorred political parties and hoped that presidents would be selected by something like an elite consensus. But we have political parties, the oldest and third oldest in the world, and they are not going away.

From A better system for picking presidential candidates | Human Events

I read the entire article and came to this conclusion: the current system sucks. Something has to be done to fix it. And, I don't think the Dems or GOP will do anything! Maybe one – or all – of the third parties will show the way and pick up some media support [good luck].

The current system sucks because it gives the party elites too much say in who the nominees will be.

I would like to see all of the states have a role in early selection of candidates. Say for instance, that we set up ten state groups, made up of five states each, scattered around the country, and rotate the primary dates so that every election cycle, a different five state group would be first, and the previous five state group would be last.

Each five state group would hold successive elections one month apart, and that would allow candidates to devote one month to each five state group. No candidate would receive any delegates until every state has voted and the national convention is held.

In addition, each party in each congressional district would elect four citizens to join their congressperson as delegates to the national convention. These citizens would be beholded only to what they promised their local supporters. Each delegate would vote individually for the candidate of their choice. This would take a lot of the power away from the party leaders to determine who the candidate is, and would help ensure that the party candidate has broad nationwide appeal.

The conventions would open with a preliminary vote of all of the delegates, and only those candidates obtaining at least 20% of the vote would still be considered. Those candidates would compete through at least two debates, and then the second vote would narrow the field to the top two contenders, if one does not get a 51% victory. A runoff vote would select the candidate.

 

[Erand7899]

By: Michael Barone 7/19/2013

You can get agreement from almost all points on the political spectrum that the worst aspect of our political system is the presidential nomination process. It is perhaps no coincidence that it is the one part of the system not treated in the Constitution.

That’s because the Founding Fathers abhorred political parties and hoped that presidents would be selected by something like an elite consensus. But we have political parties, the oldest and third oldest in the world, and they are not going away.

From A better system for picking presidential candidates | Human Events

I read the entire article and came to this conclusion: the current system sucks. Something has to be done to fix it. And, I don't think the Dems or GOP will do anything! Maybe one – or all – of the third parties will show the way and pick up some media support [good luck].

The current system sucks because it gives the party elites too much say in who the nominees will be.

I would like to see all of the states have a role in early selection of candidates. Say for instance, that we set up ten state groups, made up of five states each, scattered around the country, and rotate the primary dates so that every election cycle, a different five state group would be first, and the previous five state group would be last.

Each five state group would hold successive elections one month apart, and that would allow candidates to devote one month to each five state group. No candidate would receive any delegates until every state has voted and the national convention is held.

In addition, each party in each congressional district would elect four citizens to join their congressperson as delegates to the national convention. These citizens would be beholded only to what they promised their local supporters. Each delegate would vote individually for the candidate of their choice. This would take a lot of the power away from the party leaders to determine who the candidate is, and would help ensure that the party candidate has broad nationwide appeal.

The conventions would open with a preliminary vote of all of the delegates, and only those candidates obtaining at least 20% of the vote would still be considered. Those candidates would compete through at least two debates, and then the second vote would narrow the field to the top two contenders, if one does not get a 51% victory. A runoff vote would select the candidate.

In addition, I would provide that the candidate with the second most votes would be offered the opportunity to run for vice president, and if he/she declines, then the offer would go to the one with the next highest number of votes. If all decline, then nominations would be taken for vice president, and delegates would vote to select the vice presidential candidate.

 

[konradv]

By: Michael Barone 7/19/2013

You can get agreement from almost all points on the political spectrum that the worst aspect of our political system is the presidential nomination process. It is perhaps no coincidence that it is the one part of the system not treated in the Constitution.

That’s because the Founding Fathers abhorred political parties and hoped that presidents would be selected by something like an elite consensus. But we have political parties, the oldest and third oldest in the world, and they are not going away.

From A better system for picking presidential candidates | Human Events

I read the entire article and came to this conclusion: the current system sucks. Something has to be done to fix it. And, I don't think the Dems or GOP will do anything! Maybe one – or all – of the third parties will show the way and pick up some media support [good luck].

The current system sucks because it gives the party elites too much say in who the nominees will be.

I would like to see all of the states have a role in early selection of candidates. Say for instance, that we set up ten state groups, made up of five states each, scattered around the country, and rotate the primary dates so that every election cycle, a different five state group would be first, and the previous five state group would be last.

Each five state group would hold successive elections one month apart, and that would allow candidates to devote one month to each five state group. No candidate would receive any delegates until every state has voted and the national convention is held.

In addition, each party in each congressional district would elect four citizens to join their congressperson as delegates to the national convention. These citizens would be beholded only to what they promised their local supporters. Each delegate would vote individually for the candidate of their choice. This would take a lot of the power away from the party leaders to determine who the candidate is, and would help ensure that the party candidate has broad nationwide appeal.

The conventions would open with a preliminary vote of all of the delegates, and only those candidates obtaining at least 20% of the vote would still be considered. Those candidates would compete through at least two debates, and then the second vote would narrow the field to the top two contenders, if one does not get a 51% victory. A runoff vote would select the candidate.

States can have a say in when primaries are held, but saying how delegates would be awarded isn't within their power. That's a matter to be decided by the parties, which are private entities.

Any change that major would require Constitutional amendments. If we're going that far, I'd say go to public financing. That would go the farthest towards breaking the stranglehold of the parties, besides relieving our representatives of having a lot of expensive promises to keep and freeing them up to actually read a few bills.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Each political party has the right to select their candidate(s) however they choose.

If no one else is willing to do the work - grassroots work - to challenge either of these parties, the process will stay pretty much status quo. Right now, neither the Republicans or Democrats have anything to gain by changing the process.

The problem I have with most "third" parties, is that they try to start at the top. They run someone for president and they don't even have a representative in a state legislature. It's like trying to hold a first grade piano recital in Carnegie Hall.

The process isn't going to change overnight - and most people are too lazy and/or impatient to lay the groundwork and do the hard work necessary (for as long as necessary) to challenge these two parties and the system they have created.

Just MHO

 

[Mad Scientist]

You'll take your chosen Hereditary Leader from either Mafia Family and you will like it!

 

[Erand7899]

By: Michael Barone 7/19/2013



From A better system for picking presidential candidates | Human Events

I read the entire article and came to this conclusion: the current system sucks. Something has to be done to fix it. And, I don't think the Dems or GOP will do anything! Maybe one – or all – of the third parties will show the way and pick up some media support [good luck].

The current system sucks because it gives the party elites too much say in who the nominees will be.

I would like to see all of the states have a role in early selection of candidates. Say for instance, that we set up ten state groups, made up of five states each, scattered around the country, and rotate the primary dates so that every election cycle, a different five state group would be first, and the previous five state group would be last.

Each five state group would hold successive elections one month apart, and that would allow candidates to devote one month to each five state group. No candidate would receive any delegates until every state has voted and the national convention is held.

In addition, each party in each congressional district would elect four citizens to join their congressperson as delegates to the national convention. These citizens would be beholded only to what they promised their local supporters. Each delegate would vote individually for the candidate of their choice. This would take a lot of the power away from the party leaders to determine who the candidate is, and would help ensure that the party candidate has broad nationwide appeal.

The conventions would open with a preliminary vote of all of the delegates, and only those candidates obtaining at least 20% of the vote would still be considered. Those candidates would compete through at least two debates, and then the second vote would narrow the field to the top two contenders, if one does not get a 51% victory. A runoff vote would select the candidate.

States can have a say in when primaries are held, but saying how delegates would be awarded isn't within their power. That's a matter to be decided by the parties, which are private entities.

Any change that major would require Constitutional amendments. If we're going that far, I'd say go to public financing. That would go the farthest towards breaking the stranglehold of the parties, besides relieving our representatives of having a lot of expensive promises to keep and freeing them up to actually read a few bills.

If the parties agree to the new system, the states will go along, and that includes how the delegates are picked and assigned.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what constitutional revisions would be required.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If the parties agree to the new system, the states will go along, and that includes how the delegates are picked and assigned.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what constitutional revisions would be required.

The only way to get the parties to agree to it (what motivation do they have?) is to force them by law - and THAT would require Constitutional revisions.

 

[konradv]

The current system sucks because it gives the party elites too much say in who the nominees will be.

I would like to see all of the states have a role in early selection of candidates. Say for instance, that we set up ten state groups, made up of five states each, scattered around the country, and rotate the primary dates so that every election cycle, a different five state group would be first, and the previous five state group would be last.

Each five state group would hold successive elections one month apart, and that would allow candidates to devote one month to each five state group. No candidate would receive any delegates until every state has voted and the national convention is held.

In addition, each party in each congressional district would elect four citizens to join their congressperson as delegates to the national convention. These citizens would be beholded only to what they promised their local supporters. Each delegate would vote individually for the candidate of their choice. This would take a lot of the power away from the party leaders to determine who the candidate is, and would help ensure that the party candidate has broad nationwide appeal.

The conventions would open with a preliminary vote of all of the delegates, and only those candidates obtaining at least 20% of the vote would still be considered. Those candidates would compete through at least two debates, and then the second vote would narrow the field to the top two contenders, if one does not get a 51% victory. A runoff vote would select the candidate.

States can have a say in when primaries are held, but saying how delegates would be awarded isn't within their power. That's a matter to be decided by the parties, which are private entities.

Any change that major would require Constitutional amendments. If we're going that far, I'd say go to public financing. That would go the farthest towards breaking the stranglehold of the parties, besides relieving our representatives of having a lot of expensive promises to keep and freeing them up to actually read a few bills.

If the parties agree to the new system, the states will go along, and that includes how the delegates are picked and assigned.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what constitutional revisions would be required.

Any idea that would require the parties to apportion delegates in a certain way or run their conventions a certain way, wouldn't pass Constitutional muster, IMO. I would seem to violate the 1st amendment right of free assembly.

 

[nodoginnafight]

States can have a say in when primaries are held, but saying how delegates would be awarded isn't within their power. That's a matter to be decided by the parties, which are private entities.

Any change that major would require Constitutional amendments. If we're going that far, I'd say go to public financing. That would go the farthest towards breaking the stranglehold of the parties, besides relieving our representatives of having a lot of expensive promises to keep and freeing them up to actually read a few bills.

If the parties agree to the new system, the states will go along, and that includes how the delegates are picked and assigned.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what constitutional revisions would be required.

Any idea that would require the parties to apportion delegates in a certain way or run their conventions a certain way, wouldn't pass Constitutional muster, IMO. I would seem to violate the 1st amendment right of free assembly.

"But what if the parties voluntarily agree to it???"

Ain't gonna happen - what do they have to gain by helping destroy the stranglehold they have worked for so long and so hard to achieve?

 

[Steven_R]

I'm at the point now where I think we should scrap elections at every level and just randomly pick people off of voter roles for the job, like we do with Jury Duty. Bob's name gets pulled, Bob has to be Senator for a term. Jane's name, and she's President. End of term, they get a check and go away, ineligible to hold office again for a few years.

God knows it can't get any worse than the idiots in DC now. Both parties suck and the handful of choices their leadership will allow is just pitiful.

 

[Defiant1]

By: Michael Barone 7/19/2013



From A better system for picking presidential candidates | Human Events

I read the entire article and came to this conclusion: the current system sucks. Something has to be done to fix it. And, I don't think the Dems or GOP will do anything! Maybe one – or all – of the third parties will show the way and pick up some media support [good luck].

The current system sucks because it gives the party elites too much say in who the nominees will be.

I would like to see all of the states have a role in early selection of candidates. Say for instance, that we set up ten state groups, made up of five states each, scattered around the country, and rotate the primary dates so that every election cycle, a different five state group would be first, and the previous five state group would be last.

Each five state group would hold successive elections one month apart, and that would allow candidates to devote one month to each five state group. No candidate would receive any delegates until every state has voted and the national convention is held.

In addition, each party in each congressional district would elect four citizens to join their congressperson as delegates to the national convention. These citizens would be beholded only to what they promised their local supporters. Each delegate would vote individually for the candidate of their choice. This would take a lot of the power away from the party leaders to determine who the candidate is, and would help ensure that the party candidate has broad nationwide appeal.

The conventions would open with a preliminary vote of all of the delegates, and only those candidates obtaining at least 20% of the vote would still be considered. Those candidates would compete through at least two debates, and then the second vote would narrow the field to the top two contenders, if one does not get a 51% victory. A runoff vote would select the candidate.

States can have a say in when primaries are held, but saying how delegates would be awarded isn't within their power. That's a matter to be decided by the parties, which are private entities.

Any change that major would require Constitutional amendments. If we're going that far, I'd say go to public financing. That would go the farthest towards breaking the stranglehold of the parties, besides relieving our representatives of having a lot of expensive promises to keep and freeing them up to actually read a few bills.

The bolded above. Why is it the first thing liberals want to do is limit free speech?

 

[Wacky Quacky]

There's nothing problem with the system, just with the idiot Americans who participate. They care more about who polls better against the competition instead of who would be better for the country.

 

[nodoginnafight]

There's nothing problem with the system, just with the idiot Americans who participate. They care more about who polls better against the competition instead of who would be better for the country.

IMHO: Thats kinda harsh. I agree to an extent, and would like to see more folks vote for their favorite without factoring in who has " a real chance."

But the Democrats and Republicans have spent more than 100 years cementing their stranglehold. It might be expecting too much of people to ask them to suddenly break free of that conditioning.