Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/7/2008 10:10:54 AM EST
It would seem that Democracy isn't very Democratic when you limit your choices to one candidate. Why can't they all run and let the people choose in the general election?

Just thinking out loud.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:13:39 AM EST
They can, it's just a matter of money.

It use to be that you voted for the P and VP seperately and not as one ticket.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:14:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By DHSGMAN:
It would seem that Democracy isn't very Democratic when you limit your choices to one candidate. Why can't they all run and let the people choose in the general election?

Just thinking out loud.


Party rules. Why offer 2 choices if the opposing party only offers 1? You're just splitting your own base then.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:29:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dion:
They can, it's just a matter of money.

It use to be that you voted for the P and VP seperately and not as one ticket.


You still do(*), it's in the constitution.

(*)It's actually up to the states, since they choose their own electors however they see fit. Part of the controversy in the 2000 election was the number of Gore/Buchanan "ticket" votes, as Florida (at that time, don't know now).
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:30:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/7/2008 10:39:57 AM EST by allenNH]
*snipped for my poor reading comprehension*
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:33:22 AM EST
Didn't Theodore Roosevelt do that? Didn't work out too well though.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:38:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By DHSGMAN:
It would seem that Democracy isn't very Democratic when you limit your choices to one candidate. Why can't they all run and let the people choose in the general election?

Just thinking out loud.


That's just the way it works - now, the '3rd candidate' can always go independent or form his own party and still run - it worked for Perot, Roosevelt, etc. Not that they won anything though.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:39:42 AM EST
Because the parties are organizations and they want the White House. Why split the vote into multiple candidates when they can run just one? If either party tried to run multiple candidates all the other party would have to do to win is run just one (at least, with the current state of American political division).
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:41:57 AM EST
"There can be only one"
It's like Highlander, minus the decapitation.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 10:50:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By Atvar:
"There can be only one"
It's like Highlander, minus the decapitation.


Unfortunately.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 11:23:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By technocia:
Didn't Theodore Roosevelt do that? Didn't work out too well though.


No it didn't.

President Woodrow Wilson is the one man most directly responsible for the slow lingering death of our republic.

Funny thing is the Roosevelt/Taft split, and the Jefferson/Hamilton for that matter, are so similar to the current fractures in the GOP. We really haven't resolved much in two centuries.

When W said he was a fan of WW I knew we were in real trouble as a party.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 11:24:31 AM EST
Hell, I'd be happy if there was even one Republican running in the next election.
Top Top