Posted on Oct 15, 2015
Do you like not having any choice about whom you may choose to vote?
2.38K
37
24
2
2
0
Politics
Election 2016
Democrats
Democracy
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 13
4
4
0
This is why we should do away with the parties and decide who we want to vote for with no party affiliation.
(4)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SPC Neal Grilley - A direct vote would be a disaster for most of the country. The cities would choose the president and low population states would be completely ignored.
Also, you can count the number of times an Elector has broken from the vote of his or her state on one hand.
Also, you can count the number of times an Elector has broken from the vote of his or her state on one hand.
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SSG John Thornton - huh?! 1st Amendment connected to the parties system?? what are you talking about?
All we need to do is as a voter of the majority, ignore the parties. Who said we need to outlaw parties system?
All we need to do is as a voter of the majority, ignore the parties. Who said we need to outlaw parties system?
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
SSG John Thornton - no one said parties system is illegal. that point is clear.
Ignoring parties mean you just vote with your interest or values so said some. Eventually states' interest will overwrite "parties". That is what US used to be way back to the beginning. Now, parties' interest overwrite states' interest.
Ignoring parties mean you just vote with your interest or values so said some. Eventually states' interest will overwrite "parties". That is what US used to be way back to the beginning. Now, parties' interest overwrite states' interest.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
This has always been the case with both parties. And it absolutely makes me livid when my choices are artificially limited.
(3)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
As someone once said, "poison or poison lite" They know you will take the poison lite"
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
LTC (Join to see)
If I was a Democrat considering a candidate other than Clinton, I would be pissed.
(1)
(0)
LTC John Shaw
LTC (Join to see) - Just because the party leadership is trying to stack the deck doesn't mean they will be successful. President Obama defeated the Clinton machine, it can happen.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC (Join to see)
I think we should do away with the Electoral College. Some people have said that it would be disastrous for lower populated areas but I don't see it. The larger the population of a state, the more electoral votes it gets. So that tells me that my state's votes don't matter as much as California's because they have more people? Unacceptable.
I think we should do away with the Electoral College. Some people have said that it would be disastrous for lower populated areas but I don't see it. The larger the population of a state, the more electoral votes it gets. So that tells me that my state's votes don't matter as much as California's because they have more people? Unacceptable.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No that would make the whole matter a show , a fake - B.S. style show. And i for one don't go for that.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Allow me to disagree respectfully...
Once upon a time candidates were chosen in "smoke-filled rooms" by the "movers and shakers" of each party. They chose the candidates with proven track records of organizing and leading, the ones who had paid their dues. In my lifetime, they offered choices such as Truman and Dewey, Eisenhower and Stevenson, Kennedy and Nixon, Goldwater and Johnson. Interestingly, I found them all to be admirable choices and, although I had strong feelings in support of one or the other, I was willing to accept the choice of We the People and respect whomever rose to the office of President. Then came the democratization of the primary process. We the People were allowed to choose the candidates and with the exception of only one, I have found them to be poor choices regardless of their party affiliation. Carter. Clinton. Bush. Dole. Obama. McCain. Romney. Little there to respect. Of course, that's just my opinion.
It puts me in mind of the lessons I've learned in parenting. For example, only a fool would offer their child the choice of eating their broccoli or going to their room. Of course, the child will choose to go to their room. No. You offer children choices in which they benefit whichever way they decide. Eat your broccoli or your carrots.
I pine for an election in which I could be happy with either candidate. Instead, I'm confronted with choosing between the lesser of two evils.
Maybe it's time to return to those glorious days of yesteryear...
Once upon a time candidates were chosen in "smoke-filled rooms" by the "movers and shakers" of each party. They chose the candidates with proven track records of organizing and leading, the ones who had paid their dues. In my lifetime, they offered choices such as Truman and Dewey, Eisenhower and Stevenson, Kennedy and Nixon, Goldwater and Johnson. Interestingly, I found them all to be admirable choices and, although I had strong feelings in support of one or the other, I was willing to accept the choice of We the People and respect whomever rose to the office of President. Then came the democratization of the primary process. We the People were allowed to choose the candidates and with the exception of only one, I have found them to be poor choices regardless of their party affiliation. Carter. Clinton. Bush. Dole. Obama. McCain. Romney. Little there to respect. Of course, that's just my opinion.
It puts me in mind of the lessons I've learned in parenting. For example, only a fool would offer their child the choice of eating their broccoli or going to their room. Of course, the child will choose to go to their room. No. You offer children choices in which they benefit whichever way they decide. Eat your broccoli or your carrots.
I pine for an election in which I could be happy with either candidate. Instead, I'm confronted with choosing between the lesser of two evils.
Maybe it's time to return to those glorious days of yesteryear...
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
This problem will be solved if/when the election system is ever improved.
What is needed is a runoff election. That way, we can start off with any number of presidential candidates from any number of parties. The general election would determine the top two candidates, who would then be elected in a runoff election. That would allow people to vote for the candidate they really like in the general election, without having the concern about wasting a vote for a candidate that normally wouldn't have a chance. If the Democrats & Republicans choose milquetoast or wingnut nominees, good candidates who got rejected could still run in a third party or even under their own name. It would help solve the problem of certain states having undue influence in the candidate pool because their primaries were held earlier than in other states.
For that same reason, I am also a proponent of having all polling places everywhere in the country open all at the same time. From 6:00 am to midnight on the east coast, and from midnight to 6:00 pm in Hawaii. Everybody in the country would have the same 18 hours to cast their ballot, which means there is no possible way the election could be already determined by the time people in the west end got to vote. Which means that people's votes in Oregon and Alaska would count just as much as people's votes in Maryland and New Hampshire. It also means that the media could never again throw an election by calling states for a particular candidate before the polls close in other states.
What is needed is a runoff election. That way, we can start off with any number of presidential candidates from any number of parties. The general election would determine the top two candidates, who would then be elected in a runoff election. That would allow people to vote for the candidate they really like in the general election, without having the concern about wasting a vote for a candidate that normally wouldn't have a chance. If the Democrats & Republicans choose milquetoast or wingnut nominees, good candidates who got rejected could still run in a third party or even under their own name. It would help solve the problem of certain states having undue influence in the candidate pool because their primaries were held earlier than in other states.
For that same reason, I am also a proponent of having all polling places everywhere in the country open all at the same time. From 6:00 am to midnight on the east coast, and from midnight to 6:00 pm in Hawaii. Everybody in the country would have the same 18 hours to cast their ballot, which means there is no possible way the election could be already determined by the time people in the west end got to vote. Which means that people's votes in Oregon and Alaska would count just as much as people's votes in Maryland and New Hampshire. It also means that the media could never again throw an election by calling states for a particular candidate before the polls close in other states.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google