Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 11/1/2004 4:03:28 AM EST
Something that has been bugging me. The party in power of the white house will always try to reelect the incumbent. Some shadowy element of the other party seems to select a candidate to run vs. the incumbent. That selection humbly accepts the nomination and the race for president is on. At one time in this country weren’t several politicians nominated for a particular party and then the party voted on them to decide the best one? Why don’t we do that now? When did that process stop?

I think bush is the best choice but if another republican choice were made available to me or even another dem I would seriously consider them. I hate voting for “x” only because it is less repugnant than “y”. I think the system would work better if we had about 8 choices in the primaries. 4 per party and a run off. Or better yet about 3-4 parties and three candidates each. Anyone else share these feelings?
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:06:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:
Something that has been bugging me. The party in power of the white house will always try to reelect the incumbent. Some shadowy element of the other party seems to select a candidate to run vs. the incumbent. That selection humbly accepts the nomination and the race for president is on. At one time in this country weren’t several politicians nominated for a particular party and then the party voted on them to decide the best one? Why don’t we do that now? When did that process stop?

I think bush is the best choice but if another republican choice were made available to me or even another dem I would seriously consider them. I hate voting for “x” only because it is less repugnant than “y”. I think the system would work better if we had about 8 choices in the primaries. 4 per party and a run off. Or better yet about 3-4 parties and three candidates each. Anyone else share these feelings?



No offense intended, but you seem a little clueless on this. The Parties DO vote in the Primaries.

Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:17:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2004 4:26:53 AM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By hk940:
Something that has been bugging me. The party in power of the white house will always try to reelect the incumbent. Some shadowy element of the other party seems to select a candidate to run vs. the incumbent. That selection humbly accepts the nomination and the race for president is on. At one time in this country weren’t several politicians nominated for a particular party and then the party voted on them to decide the best one? Why don’t we do that now? When did that process stop?

I think bush is the best choice but if another republican choice were made available to me or even another dem I would seriously consider them. I hate voting for “x” only because it is less repugnant than “y”. I think the system would work better if we had about 8 choices in the primaries. 4 per party and a run off. Or better yet about 3-4 parties and three candidates each. Anyone else share these feelings?



1) The LAST thing we need is more than 2 viable parties. Period. If we had 3+, that would mean you would NEVER get a majority in Congress, and we'd have coalition bullshit like Europe, where the ideology in power is determined by back-door 'lets-make-a-deal' games, not by the voters...

2) The nomination process is controlled by the people. No one in the Republican party wanted to challenge GW Bush (and why would they? He's been the poster-boy for the modern Republican party, and done a great job as POTUS. If you don't agree with that your (party's simbol is) a jackass...), so he ran uncontested in the Republican primary.

But in case you missed it, there were a whole pile of Democrats in their party's primary: Sharpton, Carol Mosly-Braun (we called her Mostly-Fraud, as she was put in office by the Daley Machine down in IL), Dennis 'Department of Peace' Kook-cinich, Kerry, Edwards, Howie 'Screamin' Dean, Gebhardt, and Lieberman...

The voters chose Kerry to be the Dem nominee this year...

3) So, you don't like voting for 'x' because he's less repugnant than 'y'? Well if so, your political views are so far outside the mainstream that your candidate would never win a primary anyway...
There are so many folks on this board who just don't realize that, and keep acting as if one day their dream candidate will come... Sorry, ain't gonna happen... You aren't going to see anyone more conservative than Reagan or GW Bush, on the GOP ticket, and you won't see a Democrat more moderate than Bill Clinton on the Dem side... And Libertarians? Scrww that... Most of the people on both sides will reject that ideology on principle, as most of us realize that a good portion of this nation's population is too stupid to handle the level of liberty they advocate.... Adults with the mental abilities & impulse control of 16yo children cannot handle the LP's anarchist utopia...

So get used to voting for the lesser of two evils, so long as your political views make YOUR candidate 'more evil' to most of the members of both major parties (Libertarian Party folks, this means YOU, especially when you nominate a CONFESSED CRIMINAL, ESP A TAX EVADER, to run for president)...

4) I agree, we SHOULD have a run-off system for all Federal elections... Why? Because it would put these stupid minor parties in their place, and keep them from screwing with the viable party's elections...

Everyone would be forced to choose BETWEEN THE TWO GUYS WHO CAN ACTUALLY WIN! No more 'protest votes', but rather 'Pick one, or quit playing tiddly-winks with the electoral system & stop voting'...
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 4:52:13 AM EST
sometimes i just got to vent.
Top Top