Y'know what, I think I'll withdraw from this argument. I honestly haven't studied voting systems enough that I can really make a stand, it just spiraled from that one comment. Mike, you've piqued my interest, and I'll try to look into some alternate systems. Any good texts you recommend?
Originally Posted by asterism42
Fair enough.
WikipediaMike, you've piqued my interest, and I'll try to look into some alternate systems. Any good texts you recommend?
I'm not a politics student, my information comes solely from there, and a few other sites. I have one on my desktop computer, actually, that explains it pretty well, but I'm on my laptop at the moment, so....
What are you a student of, if you don't mind me asking?
Physics (specifically, Cosmology), although I've pretty much finished my PhD now (I've submitted it and done the viva, and I just have to correct it), and I'm now spending a bit of time writing some papers prior to starting a programming job in London.
Wow, nice.
Thanks.
Well, that's a pretty universal problem with democracy, really, regardless of the system you use. The freedom to not vote is as valid as the freedom to vote, after all.
Of course, some countries disagree on voting being an option.
Yeah, but it's more than that, because primaries aren't supposed to be truly "democratic". They're simply a way for each party to pick its candidate for the actual election. The party sets the rules and, contrary to what you might believe, it's not solely a case of "whoever gets the most votes wins".
Yeah, but I have to agree with Jase here (I think it's wrong to force people to vote, and it also tends to lead to a lot of lowest-common-denominator politics, in order to appeal to the people who, honestly, couldn't give a shit who they vote for and, thus, can't be bothered to look any more deeply than the preferences of their favourite paper), and in any case that still doesn't apply to primaries.
Is it really that undemocratic? Cause as far as I'm concerned, if there's a well placed precedent in the way, that's good enough.
Really, as far as I can tell, the most undemocratic part of the process is the selection of vice president, more than anything else. I'm pretty sure that's where McCain lost most of his votes on, after all.
It's not supposed to be democratic. It has a large amount of democracy in it, yes, but in the end it's up to the party to choose the candidate, not the people. The people merely choose from the options presented to them.
What the hell does "precedent" have to do with democracy?Cause as far as I'm concerned, if there's a well placed precedent in the way, that's good enough.
Well, if you try to elect the VP seperately you could have someone who simply can't work with the president taking that role (which has happened before, under the original system), so the two have to go together, really. It wasn't just McCain standing for president, it was McCain running for president with Palin as his VP. It's no less democratic to bundle the two together than it is to elect just McCain.Really, as far as I can tell, the most undemocratic part of the process is the selection of vice president, more than anything else. I'm pretty sure that's where McCain lost most of his votes on, after all.
Well, no, I was just wondering, since my memory was foggy:
Are VP's selected and matched up with candidates before people choose them, or after (before the final vote)?
Erm, what do you mean?
Well, say, imagine VP's were paired with the candidates before they were put to vote in the prelims.
Do you think McCain would have been as popular a candidate, if the Republicans knew Sarah Palin would be his running mate before voting him to be the Republican candidate?
Just a curious thought. I'm also not sure at what point the decision is made, that is all.
I believe that the decision isn't made until after the primaries are over (not least because the VP candidate is usually someone who stood in the primaries themselves), although I'm not 100% sure.
Having said that, McCain paired himself with Palin precisely because she was popular with certain elements of the Republican party, so I don't think it would have hindered his chances in the primary.
I dunno, it's sort of a mixed bag decision in my eyes.
While it tempered McCain's apparent "radical" streak with a much more archetypal candidate, the fact that McCain could die and she'd become president really scared off quite a lot of people.
Arguably, a fair number of people don't mind her as VP. But the case of her becoming president is entirely different.
Erm, what? Since when is McCain radical and Palin "archtypical"? Palin is a raving lunatic....
McCain had a well known record amongst the Republicans for being "unpredictable". On several issues, he'd have opinions that opposed the agreed norm amongst the Republicans. Radical in this case meant he had the occasional left leanings that would be "scary" to a republican voter.
In trying to counteract that, they tried pairing him with Palin, whose politics at the time reflected the Republican party's usual stance on most stuff, without any real variation. Plus, the novelty of her being a women, which most people agreed didn't actually matter.
Well, yeah, that's true, although I wouldn't call Palin "mainstream" even for a Republican. She's definitely to the right of the party. It's just that picking her reassured those people who were worried about McCain, which was (of course) the right of the party.
The rest of what you said is right, though. Palin being VP was, by itself, largely meaningless to most people (because the job isn't that important), but the possibility of her becoming president was downright scary. Plus, of course, it put focus on McCain's age, which is the last thing he needed.
Yeah, lol, poor old guy.
I dunno, I sympathize, cause I'd probably have put McCain through as a candidate, only to drop him once Palin came into the picture.
Not that I can participate in US politics or anything.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
