Who do you think should be elected in 2008?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Our state convention is in a couple of weeks. I will NOT be going as a delegate, darnit. (By the way, and this should be in the happy thread, I had the choice on that day to run a LARP, attend a Bat Mitzvah, or go to the state convention ) I hope we manage to elect good delegates. And I hope we get through the convention with some darn dignity intact.

But slinging has been a big occupation all over. People are going to have to remember what our main task is, here.

I saw a Star Trek that outlined the problem perfectly, the other day. :/

[hectorberlioz]

The upside of mudslinging: it coats the candidates in mud as they prepare to walk through the fires of the General Election. Baked candidates. MMmmm.

[Curufin]

That's an interesting way to look at it!

I'm so tired of all the mudslinging, I'm about ready to vote for whoever doesn't engage in it, no matter what party they are...

Ok, not really, but it sounds good anyway.

I do wish for once that a candidate could campaign on their strength instead of the other candidate's faults, though.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

That's an interesting way to look at it!

I'm so tired of all the mudslinging, I'm about ready to vote for whoever doesn't engage in it, no matter what party they are...

Ok, not really, but it sounds good anyway.

I do wish for once that a candidate could campaign on their strength instead of the other candidate's faults, though.

I saw a speech by Hillary the other day, a policy speech she gave in Philadelphia. She talked about the war, but she devoted the bulk of her speech to the economy. It was brilliant. She had every detail, clearly arranged...changes to the bankruptcy code, banking regulations, the mortgage crisis. She had the TV all to herself, it was like a state of the union address.

And it will never get her elected. She talked about her first house, and how important to them it was...they were married in the living room. That part got applause. She was really engaging, when she wasn't in "policy wonk' mode.

I've seen Obama speak too. It's a "falling in love" thing. He's like the world's greatest mirror...in his optimism you see yourself, and your country, growing to new and nobler heights.

But unless the Dems have a Hillary with a 'to-do list' they can't get there. That's what the Super-delegates worry about. We have to win the peace, too.

I hope we can work it out sensibly.

[Curufin]

I've not seen Hillary speak in person, but I saw Obama in Louisville last February before he officially started his campaign. I agree with you 100% - listening to him speak is one of the most uplifting and hopeful experiences I've ever had.

I have nothing whatsoever against Hillary's platform. I agree with most of it. I'm just afraid that her insistence on continuing her campaign on such a dirty level is going to split the democratic party and cause problems in November.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I've not seen Hillary speak in person, but I saw Obama in Louisville last February before he officially started his campaign. I agree with you 100% - listening to him speak is one of the most uplifting and hopeful experiences I've ever had.

I have nothing whatsoever against Hillary's platform. I agree with most of it. I'm just afraid that her insistence on continuing her campaign on such a dirty level is going to split the democratic party and cause problems in November.

Yeah, "split the Democratic Party' is a tough one, here. The super-delegates ARE a large part of the democratic party. What decides the general election may very well be who pulls more independent voters... and that's not what disputed primaries do well.

[Curufin]

That's for sure.

Well, anyway, it's certainly a more interesting primary than I ever remember having in my lifetime. But interesting is not necessarily good, I suppose.

Personally, I think what we need to do is completely revamp the system, get rid of the vestiges of anti-federalism still inherent in the "Delegate" system and the "Electoral College" and have a president elected by the will of the people alone.

It would solve so many problems!

[The Dread Pirate Roberts]

And create so many more. . .

[Curufin]

Oh really? Elaborate.

EDIT: I'm off to the store, be back in a bit.

[Prince Myshkin]

Originally Posted by Curufin

That's for sure.

Well, anyway, it's certainly a more interesting primary than I ever remember having in my lifetime. But interesting is not necessarily good, I suppose.

Personally, I think what we need to do is completely revamp the system, get rid of the vestiges of anti-federalism still inherent in the "Delegate" system and the "Electoral College" and have a president elected by the will of the people alone.

It would solve so many problems!

There would be A LOTmore problems that would follow directly on the tails of elimination or undermining of the Electoral College.

First, the delegate system is part of the political parties' system for selecting candidates, not related to the Electoral College which was outlined as part of the Constitution as a method to allow the selection of presidents.

ELiminating the Electroral College would actuually cause many more difficulties than most people beleive. It would essentially cause the collapse of the two party system that evolved as a result from the way the E.C. was designed.

If the Electoral College were to be abolished, elections would become MUCH nastier than they already are. Third party and single issue candidates would proliferate and stand a much better chance of actually winning. It wouldn't take as many votes to become the president. Imagine the type of problems that could come from being elected "leader of the free world" with much less than 50% of the country having voted for you.

The way that a candidate would succeed would be to inflame their base with controversial subjects as opposed to building coalitions between different types of voters.

Only the largest media markets would be targeted for campaigning. Because it would be straight on numbers, not appealing to people in states across the board. The Electoral College forces candidates to appeal to wider markets.

The Electoral College was partly designed to ensure the rights of minorities and smaller populations. That would become a thing of the past because there would be no strategic advantage to winning all 500,000 voters in Wyoming.

The Electoral College has solved a lot more problems than it has created, not least of which being without the compromise of the Electoral College, there would be the independant colonies, and not the United States of America.

Besides, what reimbursement would there be for living in wyoming without the Electoral College? lol

I happen to be writing an extensive research paper on the E.C. now which lends to my current erudition...

Nice to meet you!

[Curufin]

Originally Posted by Prince Myshkin

First, the delegate system is part of the political parties' system for selecting candidates, not related to the Electoral College which was outlined as part of the Constitution as a method to allow the selection of presidents.

Yes, I know. But they're similar.

ELiminating the Electroral College would actuually cause many more difficulties than most people believe. It would essentially cause the collapse of the two party system that evolved as a result from the way the E.C. was designed.

Good! The two party system is anti-democratic and stagnates discourse. Have you ever looked at how similar the two parties platforms are? We could use a little bit of diversity in American politics. Something obviously isn't working in American politics - look at our low voter turnout. We're absolutely thrilled when we reach 60%.

If the Electoral College were to be abolished, elections would become MUCH nastier than they already are. Third party and single issue candidates would proliferate and stand a much better chance of actually winning. It wouldn't take as many votes to become the president. Imagine the type of problems that could come from being elected "leader of the free world" with much less than 50% of the country having voted for you.

Like Bush? Seriously, we have this problem now. With approximately 50% of registered voters actually voting, every president we have elected carries a national mandate of 25% or less. How would this be different? If we could increase voter turnout from interest, it might even be better. In addition, we could adopt something akin to the Single Transferrable Vote which would solve that problem all together.

The way that a candidate would succeed would be to inflame their base with controversial subjects as opposed to building coalitions between different types of voters.

This doesn't happen now? When is the last time we saw a good "coalition" between Democrats and Republicans? Not in my lifetime.

Only the largest media markets would be targeted for campaigning. Because it would be straight on numbers, not appealing to people in states across the board. The Electoral College forces candidates to appeal to wider markets.

Not really. So many of the states are a sure thing that most candidates don't bother. My home state, Indiana, hadn't had any attention at all until the recent elections when everything was so close. We were going to go Republican and everyone knew it, so why waste the time?

The Electoral College was partly designed to ensure the rights of minorities and smaller populations. That would become a thing of the past because there would be no strategic advantage to winning all 500,000 voters in Wyoming.

We see this very differently. The Electoral College ensures that the vote of a person in Wyoming is worth a great deal more than the vote of a person in California. Look at it this way: North Dakota has three electoral votes and a population of 635,867 as of 2006. California has 55 electoral votes, and a population of 36,553,215. That means that each person in North Dakota (ignoring registered/non-registered voters for now) has .00000472th of an electoral vote. On the other hand, it means that each person in California has .00000150th of an electoral vote, or less than a third of what they have in North Dakota. How is that fair? What ever happened to 'One man, one vote?' A person in North Dakota basically gets three votes for every one made in California.

The Electoral College has solved a lot more problems than it has created, not least of which being without the compromise of the Electoral College, there would be the independant colonies, and not the United States of America.

Well, that's debatable. The Articles of Confederation were a disaster in a myriad of ways and I don't think there's any way they would have worked with or without the Electoral college. Unification was necessary.

Besides, what reimbursement would there be for living in wyoming without the Electoral College? lol

Another question - Why should people be unfairly advantaged for living in Wyoming?

I happen to be writing an extensive research paper on the E.C. now which lends to my current erudition...

I did one in my Undergrad. What level of school are you in?

Nice to meet you!

You too!

[hectorberlioz]

Hey all you new Mooters! Good to have new voices joining in the conversation.

Looks like Mitt will be joining McCain in Salt Lake City soon. Wonder what that means.

[Curufin]

Good to have new voices joining in the conversation.

Even if I am a liberal?

Are you thinking there's going to be a McCain/Romney ticket?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Curufin

That's for sure.

Well, anyway, it's certainly a more interesting primary than I ever remember having in my lifetime. But interesting is not necessarily good, I suppose.

Personally, I think what we need to do is completely revamp the system, get rid of the vestiges of anti-federalism still inherent in the "Delegate" system and the "Electoral College" and have a president elected by the will of the people alone.

It would solve so many problems!

Yeah, but we'd have to find a new name. "United States" is already too far away from reality.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Even if I am a liberal?

Most of the mooters here are

Are you thinking there's going to be a McCain/Romney ticket?

It's possible. There's been a lot of backroom chatter (read: Karl Rove), but it seems like McCain is truly reluctant to the idea. I'm not sure it'll pan out in the end. I think he'll choose Tim Pawlenty, Michael Steele, or maybe even Condi.

But in any case, McCain needs Mitt while speaking in SLC. It isn't exactly McCain Country. For every vote McCain got, Mitt got 18. I think Mitt is there to quell the resentment.

[Curufin]

I think Condi would be a good choice for him. It would help with his 'I'm-just-another-old-white-guy' image.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Yes, I know. But they're similar.

Similar feed no fish. If you want to amend party rules, you must join a party. If you want to amend the Constitution, get in line.

Good! The two party system is anti-democratic and stagnates discourse.

I disagree. I think our party system is remarkably open.

This doesn't happen now? When is the last time we saw a good "coalition" between Democrats and Republicans?

Every day, on something. What newspapers are you reading? Sure, there are lunatics on all sides of the political spectrum, but that's true under any system.

Not really. So many of the states are a sure thing that most candidates don't bother. My home state, Indiana, hadn't had any attention at all until the recent elections when everything was so close. We were going to go Republican and everyone knew it, so why waste the time?

Are you aware that one of the chief points of political debate among Democratic politicians right now is the fact that Obama shows better in states that will go R in the general election? Shouldn't that be a concern?

How is that fair? What ever happened to 'One man, one vote?'

That's federalism, for ya. How many things in this country are you planning to run from DC? All taxation? Education? Liquor laws?

Unification was necessary.

It might look that way to you, 200 years on and from an area that was all wild, at the time. You wouldn't have talked the delegates into it, then. That's like saying "Gee, the Martian colonies aren't provided for by our system."

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Hey all you new Mooters! Good to have new voices joining in the conversation.

Looks like Mitt will be joining McCain in Salt Lake City soon. Wonder what that means.

That the Mormon mafia still have a fair-haired boy.

Originally Posted by Curufin

Even if I am a liberal?
Are you thinking there's going to be a McCain/Romney ticket?

Someone will need to send them both a lot of Maalox.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I think Mitt is there to quell the resentment.

And he loves seeing himself on TV.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I think Condi would be a good choice for him. It would help with his 'I'm-just-another-old-white-guy' image.

I gotta catch you on this, Curufin. By implication aren't you saying that people ARE voting for Obama becuase he is black, and not "just another white guy"?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

That the Mormon mafia still have a fair-haired boy.

Wow...that sure sounds kinda...bigoted.

And he loves seeing himself on TV.

He can watch himself on TV and appear with McCain at the same time?

[Curufin]

I gotta catch you on this, Curufin. By implication aren't you saying that people ARE voting for Obama becuase he is black, and not "just another white guy"?

No, not really. That may be true for some people, but not for all (or even most). My point (and perhaps I should have taken more time and worded it better) was that McCain needs something fresh and new in his campaign. Obama is a breath of fresh air - not because of his race, but because of his energy and charisma. He's also young, attractive, and hasn't spent very much time in Washington.

Two old white guys are going to have trouble fighting that, and McCain is going to need an ace up his sleeve if he hopes to win in November.

Condi is also young, attractive, and new to elected office. She's also black and female, which, to some, are important characteristics.

That's federalism, for ya. How many things in this country are you planning to run from DC? All taxation? Education? Liquor laws?

SCA - as much as possible, if I had my choice.

Are you aware that one of the chief points of political debate among Democratic politicians right now is the fact that Obama shows better in states that will go R in the general election? Shouldn't that be a concern?

And that wouldn't be a problem at all if we got rid of the electoral college...