Obama event coordinator "Get me more white people, we need more white people"

[Peikko 1,575]

However, what about the other part of my question, that in fact the influence of special interests in the presidential election is somewhat exagerated?

[mawilson 2,133]

Personally, for me a better idea would to look at ways to reduce the requirement for spending these ridiculous amounts of money on campaigning but hey, maybe that's rather idealistic?

How much money do you think they should spend on campaigning? What's not "ridiculous" in your opinion?

[Peikko 1,575]

Quite honestly I don't know. It would probably be necessary to change the way the nominees are chosen to really make any substantial savings. I don't actually see any reason why both the democrats and the republicans can't choose their nominees in a closed election, restricted to party members. That would save both time and money and I have a suspicion that it might even make it more likely that an independant could run successfully.

I mean in the main event, the presidential contest.

[mawilson 2,133]

Quite honestly I don't know. It would probably be necessary to change the way the nominees are chosen to really make any substantial savings. I don't actually see any reason why both the democrats and the republicans can't choose their nominees in a closed election, restricted to party members. That would save both time and money and I have a suspicion that it might even make it more likely that an independant could run successfully.

I mean in the main event, the presidential contest.

A closed primary wouldn't be very democratic, would it?

[Peikko 1,575]

Why not? I don't get it. I believe that it would in fact increase the democracy of the process because as I said, independants would have more of a chance in the presidential race. My reasoning, if the dems choose their nominee and the reps theirs then there are a bunch of non partisan voters on the prowl for a candidate. They can still go for the Dems or Rep's choice in the presidential race itself as well, but they might not feel so inclined to vote for one or the other if they didn't have a say in the nomination which would leave an independant more room to manoever.

[GaryC 7]

Why not? I don't get it. I believe that it would in fact increase the democracy of the process because as I said, independants would have more of a chance in the presidential race. My reasoning, if the dems choose their nominee and the reps theirs then there are a bunch of non partisan voters on the prowl for a candidate. They can still go for the Dems or Rep's choice in the presidential race itself as well, but they might not feel so inclined to vote for one or the other if they didn't have a say in the nomination which would leave an independant more room to manoever.

The whole primary idea is bogus to me. If you really want to open it up then do away with party nominations all together. Anyone that can get enough signatures on a petition has their name on the national ballot.

[Peikko 1,575]

How did it get to be the way it is anyway? I'll gladly read from source if someone would like to post a link. It just seems such an unwieldy and wasteful way of doing things but there must be some reason that it is the way it is.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why not? I don't get it. I believe that it would in fact increase the democracy of the process because as I said, independants would have more of a chance in the presidential race. My reasoning, if the dems choose their nominee and the reps theirs then there are a bunch of non partisan voters on the prowl for a candidate. They can still go for the Dems or Rep's choice in the presidential race itself as well, but they might not feel so inclined to vote for one or the other if they didn't have a say in the nomination which would leave an independant more room to manoever.

The whole primary idea is bogus to me. If you really want to open it up then do away with party nominations all together. Anyone that can get enough signatures on a petition has their name on the national ballot.

I like Gary's idea better.

[GaryC 7]

How did it get to be the way it is anyway? I'll gladly read from source if someone would like to post a link. It just seems such an unwieldy and wasteful way of doing things but there must be some reason that it is the way it is.

It has evolved over the last 225 years. As with everything else associated with the government it gets bloated over time.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't have a problem with his idea, sounds good although I am not sure you could stop the two major parties from choosing a candidate from within their own ranks if that's what they wanted to do.

Maybe I should ask Barack to add this to his campaign platform, seeing as he wants to be inclusive?

Or maybe it should come from Gary, seeing as it's his idea.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[mawilson 2,133]

It would be really cool if people could vote for several candidates (check multiple boxes - as many as they want);

the candidate who gets the most votes wins.

Think of it as a "vote for all the candidates I could live with" sort of thing.

[Peikko 1,575]

There we go, bi partisan agreement and without Barack! Who'd have thought it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I guess that's all it is then? Donators feel included because they can say that they helped keep the special interests at bay? I am happy that people are so easily pleased. I guess we can forget about the lobbyists in Washington now as they have no power now?

Easily pleased? You sure jump to conclusions. How about people would be happy to actually get started taking the first baby steps on the long road to rip the government out of the hands of special interests?

[Peikko 1,575]

Ok, I get it, you think my views stink and that's ok. However, I don't know why you just pick on one small aspect of what I ask and make out this is more important in the scheme of things than it really is. I have concurred that it's not a bad thing to have individuals making contributions but then I went on to point out that the nomination system itself is unweildy and wasteful and questioned whether in fact a more useful change wouldn't be to the presidential election system, rendering moot the question of special interest contributions at nomination stage.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok, I get it, you think my views stink and that's ok. However, I don't know why you just pick on one small aspect of what I ask and make out this is more important in the scheme of things than it really is. I have concurred that it's not a bad thing to have individuals making contributions but then I went on to point out that the nomination system itself is unweildy and wasteful and questioned whether in fact a more useful change wouldn't be to the presidential election system, rendering moot the question of special interest contributions at nomination stage.

A step at a time. I'd love to have a more open Presidential election system with more participation. Multiple candidates, one citizen-one vote (i.e. sack the electoral college) and all. Run-off elections if no candidate gathers an absolute majority. But, realistically, that's currently out of reach. At the end of the day, it is so much easier for the powerful and well funded special interest groups to control two parties.