Mega Tuesday

[CageTheBengal]

(03-15-2016, 03:53 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Because it's their primary? If they want to hear the opinion of someone not in their party, they'll host an open primary. 

Is the two party system good? Not really, but it's their primary. If you form your own club, you can decide who votes for your officers. 

That's juvenile though. We're voting for the nominees for leader of the country maybe it's time for people to act more adult about such a serious issue and let all voices be heard even if they don't stand with that party 24/7.



Do i have to go through initiation before they will let me in their tree house?

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 04:16 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: That's juvenile though. We're voting for the nominees for leader of the country maybe it's time for people to act more adult about such a serious issue and let all voices be heard even if they don't stand with that party 24/7.



Do i have to through initiation before they will let me in their tree house?

But people who are against them will vote for a very unpopular candidate to try and hurt their chances.  No way a party has to allow others to undermine their goal.

Can you just walk off the street and start trying to influence the business decisions of any private club or church?  Should atheists be able to walk into a church and try to tell them how to run their business?  

[CageTheBengal]

(03-15-2016, 04:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But people who are against them will vote for a very unpopular candidate to try and hurt their chances.  No way a party has to allow others to undermine their goal.

Can you just walk off the street and start trying to influence the business decisions of any private club or church?  Should atheists be able to walk into a church and try to tell them how to run their business?  

People can do the same thing in the general election though. Right? When everyone has a vote that's the risk you run. Isn't having a healthy Democracy more important then a political parties agenda being under-minded?

How often do those private clubs or churches effect my life in such a prominent way like electing the leader of the country does? The primaries are big step in that process.  No political party should be bigger than Democracy. We should encourage everyone to vote not compromise their vote if they don't join their club

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 05:28 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: People can do the same thing in the general election though. Right? When everyone has a vote that's the risk you run. Isn't having a healthy Democracy more important then a political parties agenda being under-minded?

How often do those private clubs or churches effect my life in such a prominent way like electing the leader of the country does? The primaries are big step in that process.  No political party should be bigger than Democracy. We should encourage everyone to vote not compromise their vote if they don't join their club

Yes.  Everyone gets to vote when we are picking a leader for everyone.

Only the party members get to vote when picking their representatives.

Very simple concept.

[CageTheBengal]

(03-15-2016, 05:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  Everyone gets to vote when we are picking a leader for everyone.

Only the party members get to vote when picking their representatives.

Very simple concept.

We weren't debating the complexity of the concept. We were debating the flaws of it.

Considering how little meat your post has to it shows there isn't much to debate.

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2016, 05:51 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: We weren't debating the complexity of the concept. We were debating the flaws of it.

Considering how little meat your post has to it shows there isn't much to debate.

There really are no flaws in the closed primary concept. The flaws are in the stranglehold the two-party system has on our nation. It is perfectly reasonable for a political party to desire only members of their own party to vote for the representative for that party in an election. It is not reasonable how many uncontested races we have in this nation or how elections for federal office are realistically only down to two parties, and sometimes one for legislature elections.

[CageTheBengal]

(03-15-2016, 05:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: There really are no flaws in the closed primary concept. The flaws are in the stranglehold the two-party system has on our nation. It is perfectly reasonable for a political party to desire only members of their own party to vote for the representative for that party in an election. It is not reasonable how many uncontested races we have in this nation or how elections for federal office are realistically only down to two parties, and sometimes one for legislature elections.

I was actually about to look up why it's so hard for a third party to rise. Both Bernie and Trump don't align with their parties views but want to be represented by them. Most people under 30 who are Dems dislike Hillary and like Bernie. When they get older and have kids they will still be voting Democrat even though the party won't represent what it does today assuming their opinions carry over years from now.

I'm not sure what we can do about the two-party system but it doesn't seem like it's going to be fixed soon. I think that's the reality we are dealing with today and open primaries wouldn't be a bad idea.

[StLucieBengal]

Cruz has won all closed primaries I believe. Open primaries have helped trump.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 06:19 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: I was actually about to look up why it's so hard for a third party to rise. 

The two parties control too much money and power.

There will never be a meaningful third party until there is massive reform of campaign finance.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-15-2016, 06:19 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: I was actually about to look up why it's so hard for a third party to rise. Both Bernie and Trump don't align with their parties views but want to be represented by them. Most people under 30 who are Dems dislike Hillary and like Bernie. When they get older and have kids they will still be voting Democrat even though the party won't represent what it does today assuming their opinions carry over years from now.

I'm not sure what we can do about the two-party system but it doesn't seem like it's going to be fixed soon. I think that's the reality we are dealing with today and open primaries wouldn't be a bad idea.

Kind of broad generalization to assume that most people that vote Democrat when they are young, continue to do so into their "responsible years", don't you think?

[SunsetBengal]

(03-15-2016, 03:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of those, for the GOP, Florida and Ohio are winner-take-all. NC is proportional, and Illinois and Missouri have some sort of hybrid system I don't know much about.

I'm not fond of the "winner take all" states.  I feel that delegate count should appropriately reflect the will of the people, the popular vote percentage.  Just the same with the General Election.  I don't like that a candidate can win a small percentage of states, and still win overwhelmingly.  The electoral college system is often not reflective of popular vote, the true will of the people.  If the US is going to stick with the electoral college system, it should be proportionate.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 05:51 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: We weren't debating the complexity of the concept. We were debating the flaws of it.

Considering how little meat your post has to it shows there isn't much to debate.

There is no flaw and I explained why.

The fact that you did not understand why you get to vote when choosing your leader, but not the leader of a group you don't belong to is your problem.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-15-2016, 08:13 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not fond of the "winner take all" states.  I feel that delegate count should appropriately reflect the will of the people, the popular vote percentage.  Just the same with the General Election.  I don't like that a candidate can win a small percentage of states, and still win overwhelmingly.  The electoral college system is often not reflective of popular vote, the true will of the people.  If the US is going to stick with the electoral college system, it should be proportionate.

I agree here. I haven't always felt this way but I think winner takes all allows candidates the ability to not campaign all over. That shouldn't be the case

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 08:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Kind of broad generalization to assume that most people that vote Democrat when they are young, continue to do so into their "responsible years", don't you think?

Not really.  The facts back it up.  

Certain generations tend to identify with the same party as they age.  For example back in the early '90's the older generation (69+) were more Democrat leaning, but now that demographic leans to Republican because it is made up of a new group of people who have always been more Republican.  So if the Millennials, Gen-Xers, and Baby Boomers follow historic patterns they will retain their political identity as they age.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-15-2016, 08:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not really.  The facts back it up.  

Certain generations tend to identify with the same party as they age.  For example back in the early '90's the older generation (69+) were more Democrat leaning, but now that demographic leans to Republican because it is made up of a new group of people who have always been more Republican.  So if the Millennials, Gen-Xers, and Baby Boomers follow historic patterns they will retain their political identity as they age.

Not really sure that the facts back anything up.  I've skimmed a dozen, or so, articles.  They each tend to flip flop, from one to another, some depending on demographic, or economic status.  But, by and large, I can find no concrete data to back up anything party related, concrete.

[*Nately120*]

(03-15-2016, 01:52 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Voted Cruz

EDUARDO RAFAEL for EL PRESIDENTE?!  

Ay yi yi!!!!

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2016, 08:13 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not fond of the "winner take all" states.  I feel that delegate count should appropriately reflect the will of the people, the popular vote percentage.  Just the same with the General Election.  I don't like that a candidate can win a small percentage of states, and still win overwhelmingly.  The electoral college system is often not reflective of popular vote, the true will of the people.  If the US is going to stick with the electoral college system, it should be proportionate.

It may not be reflective by proportion, but all but four times in history the popular and electoral winners were the same. That being said, I agree with you.

[GMDino]

(03-15-2016, 08:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: EDUARDO RAFAEL for EL PRESIDENTE?!  

Ay yi yi!!!!

[*Nately120*]

(03-15-2016, 08:05 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Kind of broad generalization to assume that most people that vote Democrat when they are young, continue to do so into their "responsible years", don't you think?

Oh man, I can't WAIT for the day I become "responsible enough" to buy into Trump's particular brand of snake oil!

But seriously, people don't just get old and wise and "become" Republicans so much as people stay the same but the world around them becomes more and more liberal to the point where they seem further right than they did, just by standing still.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-15-2016, 08:51 PM)Nately120 Wrote: EDUARDO RAFAEL for EL PRESIDENTE?!  

Ay yi yi!!!!

Yup.