McCain Has Less Core Opposition Than Clinton or Obama

[Peikko 1,575]

Wouldn't a system that didn't rely on spending vast amounts of money favour a wider array of candidates? I am sure there is a way of doing this, particulary in the computer age. I don't quite see why you believe I favour 'names'. I have never made that claim.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You favor short campaigns.

Lesser known names need more time to overcome their lack of name recognition.

Do you disagree?

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes. I am sure there are other ways to combat lack of name recognition than having an election that spans many months and costs millions of dollars just to get to the nominee stage. I am also convinced that there are better candidates that never even get on the ballot because of the way the system works.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yes. I am sure there are other ways to combat lack of name recognition than having an election that spans many months and costs millions of dollars just to get to the nominee stage.

So you think Obama in 2008 or Bill Clinton in 1992 could have beat the establishment favorites without a long state by state campaign?

How?

[Peikko 1,575]

You know better than to try to change history Mr Troll. If things were done differently there may well be a different result, but other variables would come into play so it's quite possible that an entirely different set of candidates would have (had) a viable shot of winning and then doing so.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You know better than to try to change history Mr Troll. If things were done differently there may well be a different result, but other variables would come into play so it's quite possible that an entirely different set of candidates entirely would have had a viable shot of winning and then doing so.

My argument is simply that a long, state-by-state campaign, drawn out over a period of time, allows lesser known candidates to make their case.

Is there another way? Maybe. I'd like to hear what they are, though. I assume you have something in mind.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I think our primary system for selecting a candidate works just fine and is very democratic (though though are still flaws)

I don't think anyone in this country is hankering for a parliamentary system of government

Edited February 26, 2008 by rkl57

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think our primary system for selecting a candidate works just fine and is very democratic (though though are still flaws)

I don't think anyone in this country is hankering for a parlimentary system of government

[Peikko 1,575]

You automatically assume I envisage the change to something akin to the UK? My mind doesn't work on such simplisic lines.

No Mr Troll, I don't have a magic answer but that doesn't mean that a) the current system is the only way to select a democratically elected president or B) that the current system is the best way to select a democratically elected president. After all, communications have come along way since the current system was implemented. I would imagine that a great deal of the reason the system is the way it is was due to the vast distances that had to be covered and the difficulties that that created when the fastest mode of transport was a train and a buggy.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

No Mr Troll, I don't have a magic answer...

I wasn't looking for a 'magic answer' (elections aren't magic).

I was hoping you would suggest an alternative. Seeing how you dislike the current system, I assumed you had something in mind in terms of a superior alternative.

My mistake.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, your mistake for thinking I have to have a viable alternative all ready to go in order to question the validity of the current system. It sucks, it's expensive and it can't possibly be the only democratic way to do things. As I also pointed out, this sytem has to have a lot to do with the communications difficulties that existed when it was implemented, or do you disagree?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The system was created at a time very different than ours. I don't disagree.

[GaryC 7]

I know Luz was asking why it takes so long to get to the elections. I didn't really have an answer other than "thats the way we do it". It does seem to get longer each election season though. I think we see it as a spectator sport. I know I do.

[Peikko 1,575]

Elections are sort of magic. Momentum is like magic, it's certainly not rational and yet it plays a huge role in the way elections play out.

[kaydee457 13]

It's really been too long....

The dems once again are imploding. They've fielded two candidates that are not electable, or just barely so. They have a novelty pair; a woman, and and quasi black man, and neither have much quantifiable experience at all.

Personally, I'm voting for McCain but I'm rooting for Obama for I think that as (predicably) bad that americans have behaved, by turning on their own country as our enemies said we would, that we deserve a clown like Obama for 4 years.

Jimmy Carter redux..............

Edited February 26, 2008 by kaydee457