ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th January 2020, 10:19 AM   #1
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,077
Should the Democratic Party Select Instead of Elect Their Nominees?

I won't recap all the various pro and con arguments. You know where you stand. Feel free to explain your vote in-thread.

ETA: AAAAND I forgot to tick the box for a poll! So here are the options:

---

Election: Hopefuls put their hat in the ring, party members vote for their favorite.

Qualified Election: Hopefuls are approved by party leadership, then the party members vote.

Selection: Hopefuls present themselves to the party leadership, who then pick one to be the nominee.

Delegated Selection: Party members elect the party leadership, who then pick a nominee from among the hopefuls.

Big Brother: Party leadership picks you to be the nominee. "Hopeful" doesn't even enter into it.

Brave New Party: You're happy to be the nominee. Everybody is happy you're the nominee. Shut up and take your soma.

Planet X: Vladimir Putin sends the Democratic hopefuls reproductions of Titanic band uniforms, to wear during their primary debates. Party leadership gets busy rearranging the deck chairs.

---

Discuss.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 10:20 AM   #2
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,684
The could replace the Primaries with a Ranked-Choice voting system.
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 10:21 AM   #3
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,856
Yes, I think both parties should just like most other democracies do.

If nothing else, the campaign wouldn't last 3 years.

Maybe the could pick 2 or three representing the left, right, and center of their party.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 10:24 AM   #4
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,077
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The could replace the Primaries with a Ranked-Choice voting system.
A variation of "elect, not select".

Isn't ranked-choice a kind of primary election? Just a different kind than FPTP?

What problems do you intend to solve with ranked-choice? Are there any trade-offs you can see, to doing it that way instead of some other way?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 10:29 AM   #5
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,684
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A variation of "elect, not select".
yes

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Isn't ranked-choice a kind of primary election? Just a different kind than FPTP?
very different

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What problems do you intend to solve with ranked-choice? Are there any trade-offs you can see, to doing it that way instead of some other way?
Ranked Choice Voting rewards non-confrontational campaigning and coalition building. It also encourages people to run and stay in the game, even if their chances are very slim.

What it doesn't address is the mess of Primary Debates.
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 10:37 AM   #6
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,333
Perhaps the Democratic membership needs to recognize that this is already something that is more of a "selection" process than an election, and insist that the potential candidates behave accordingly.

Although in many States the candidate is chosen by direct popular vote, some do it differently (like Iowa). Further, if we are to call it an "election" we should instead be calling it "elections" the plural recognizing that it is a State by State process played out over a long timespan- more like 50 "elections" than one.

IMO it is already a selection- not an election.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 10:54 AM   #7
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,684
The fact that one of the front-runners isn't even a declared Democrat suggests that it is more election than selection.
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 10:57 AM   #8
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 14,361
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Quote:
What problems do you intend to solve with ranked-choice? Are there any trade-offs you can see, to doing it that way instead of some other way?
Ranked Choice Voting rewards non-confrontational campaigning and coalition building. It also encourages people to run and stay in the game, even if their chances are very slim.
To me, having a bunch of marginal candidates stick in the race longer because ranked-choice gives them a glimmer of hope would seem like a detriment.

Campaigns cost money, and a bunch of politicians from the same party beating up each other can help the opposing party. I think its best if the nominee is chosen as quickly as possible, which allows the party to focus on a single candidate and message and conserves resources that will be valuable in the general election.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 11:03 AM   #9
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,684
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
To me, having a bunch of marginal candidates stick in the race longer because ranked-choice gives them a glimmer of hope would seem like a detriment.
It's not about that. In the tally, it will be clear how close each candidate came to winning, giving those who stay in the chance to campaign on their previous (almost-) success.


Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Campaigns cost money, and a bunch of politicians from the same party beating up each other can help the opposing party. I think its best if the nominee is chosen as quickly as possible, which allows the party to focus on a single candidate and message and conserves resources that will be valuable in the general election.
The advantage for the Party is that the final candidate will have overwhelming support, since they will most likely be everyone's first, second or third choice. If some candidates are in essence forced to drop out before, their supporters might feel disenfranchised.
__________________
“Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”-Sen. Lindsey Graham
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 11:18 AM   #10
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,308
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Election: Hopefuls put their hat in the ring, party members vote for their favorite.

Qualified Election: Hopefuls are approved by party leadership, then the party members vote.

Selection: Hopefuls present themselves to the party leadership, who then pick one to be the nominee.

Delegated Selection: Party members elect the party leadership, who then pick a nominee from among the hopefuls.

Big Brother: Party leadership picks you to be the nominee. "Hopeful" doesn't even enter into it.

Brave New Party: You're happy to be the nominee. Everybody is happy you're the nominee. Shut up and take your soma.
I would add another option in years where there is no incumbent running for re-election: Open Primaries, where one does not need to be a member of that party to vote for the nomination, but you can only vote for one party's candidate.

Under that scheme a Republican could vote to nominate the most unsavory Democrat as a spoiler, but then that Republican would not be able to vote for a Republican candidate (and vice-versa, of course). The idea is to reduce the insularity of the two parties.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 12:26 PM   #11
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
A few rounds of Blackjack with Rush Limbaugh as the dealer.

Separate the strategic minded from the passive.
Venom is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 12:34 PM   #12
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The fact that one of the front-runners isn't even a declared Democrat suggests that it is more election than selection.
A single election?
Or 50 elections?
The Democrats making their choice in the final 10 States are often facing a very different slate of candidates based upon the results of the first ten "elections", yet the outcome is supposed to be viewed as an election of the entire Party?

No, I stand by my assertion that is more selection process than election, even if some stages of the selection are based upon the popular support of a limited segment of the Party.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 12:36 PM   #13
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,518
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The could replace the Primaries with a Ranked-Choice voting system.
The best practical solution would be primaries conducted under identical rules in every state -- as opposed to party caucuses, open primaries, closed primaries, day-of-election registration vs. months-in-advance, etc. -- combined with rank-choice voting. During the early 2016 Repub primaries, when the 80% of voters who didn't want Trump were divided 15 different ways, Bush, Rubio etc. might have won as a second or third choice.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 03:57 PM   #14
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 26,158
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
A single election?
Or 50 elections?
The Democrats making their choice in the final 10 States are often facing a very different slate of candidates based upon the results of the first ten "elections", yet the outcome is supposed to be viewed as an election of the entire Party?

No, I stand by my assertion that is more selection process than election, even if some stages of the selection are based upon the popular support of a limited segment of the Party.
The Democrats have more than 50. Presumably Washington DC has a primary. I believe that American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico etc... Democrats Abroad also has its own primary.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 04:02 PM   #15
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,308
In terms of primaries and state influence, I would just have the primaries grouped in order of state population, lowest first, highest later. Something like five to ten states at a time every week or two for two to three months.

That way the small states get a say early on, weeding out the chaff. If the four or five most populous states all vote on the same day at the end, then chances are that nobody would yet have enough delegates to win until that last day.

This way you don't end up with some states holding primaries after one of the candidates has already won enough delegates to lock in the nomination.

Last edited by crescent; 15th January 2020 at 04:14 PM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 05:02 PM   #16
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,302
I think the Democrats should go back to the way it was done before 1972, where the primaries were not the be-all-and-end-all of the process. The idea was that candidates ran in selected primaries to show the party bosses that he (back then it was always a he) could get the voters to actually pull the lever for him. Then he went to the convention and made deals to get sufficient support from the party bigwigs. If you want to get a feel for those days, find a copy of The Making of the President: 1960 by Ted White.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2020, 09:43 PM   #17
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 32,852
I think we would be better off if each party picked their nominee at random from a database of all eligible Americans.
__________________
"Shemp, you are the one fixed point in an ever-changing universe." - Beady
"I don't want to live in a world without shemp." - Quarky
"Real name? Xavier Jorge Gladdius Horatio McShrimp. No wonder he goes by shemp." - wasapi
"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2020, 06:39 AM   #18
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,333
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
I think we would be better off if each party picked their nominee at random from a database of all eligible Americans.
I would be willing to go one further, and draft qualified citizens to fill government posts.
Serving as POTUS would be like extended jury-duty.

We could still have elections if we wish; the vote would be to exercise the option of keeping the existing draftee in place for a second term- or drawing a random replacement out of the hat.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.