Primaries to elect Presidential candidates - New England Patriots Forums

***gomezcat*** · 07-19-2006, 01:28 PM

Who can vote? Is it only registered Republicans? I ask the question because I see so much disaffection at President Bush from conservatives. It seems as if Bush was able to get a lot of the Christian Right to vote for him. Is this true? Why aren't voters able to get together and pick a Republican candidate who is still conservative, but more economically than socially so? Would it be fair to say that a majority of Americans would trade some social liberalism for more economic conservatism? That is to say, they are less bothered about social issues such as gay rights and abortion than they are about the conduct of the economy and foreign policy. Am I right in this?

Pujo · 07-19-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gomezcat

Who can vote? Is it only registered Republicans? I ask the question because I see so much disaffection at President Bush from conservatives. It seems as if Bush was able to get a lot of the Christian Right to vote for him. Is this true? Why aren't voters able to get together and pick a Republican candidate who is still conservative, but more economically than socially so? Would it be fair to say that a majority of Americans would trade some social liberalism for more economic conservatism? That is to say, they are less bothered about social issues such as gay rights and abortion than they are about the conduct of the economy and foreign policy. Am I right in this?

Most states (including here in MA) have something called closed primaries, where you can only vote in one primary, and it has to be the primary of the party that you are registered under. An independant can vote in any primary, but their registration automatically switches to the party of the primary they voted in. That said, there's nothing to stop you from voting in a Republican primary, being registered as a Republican, and then voting Democrat in the national election. I did just that when I voted for McCain in the GOP primary in 2000 (except that I voted for a Libertarian - the late Harry Browne - in the general election). I subsequently changed my affiliation back to Libertarian after the election.

Some states (California, for example) have a law mandating open primaries. Any registered voter can vote in any primary, but only in one.

Edit: Oops, looks like the Supreme Court struck down California's blanket primaries. Each party gets to decide in each state whether their primaries are open or closed.

***gomezcat*** · 07-19-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

Most states (including here in MA) have something called closed primaries, where you can only vote in one primary, and it has to be the primary of the party that you are registered under. An independant can vote in any primary, but their registration automatically switches to the party of the primary they voted in. That said, there's nothing to stop you from voting in a Republican primary, being registered as a Republican, and then voting Democrat in the national election. I did just that when I voted for McCain in the GOP primary in 2000 (except that I voted for a Libertarian - the late Harry Browne - in the general election). I subsequently changed my affiliation back to Libertarian after the election.

Some states (California, for example) have a law mandating open primaries. Any registered voter can vote in any primary, but only in one.

Edit: Oops, looks like the Supreme Court struck down California's blanket primaries. Each party gets to decide in each state whether their primaries are open or closed.

Thanks for the info. That clears it up me for me.
I guess what I was thinking, but didn't say, was that people should get out there and vote in the Primaries if they are conservatives who don't want to see another Bush type. I guess they should also vote if they want to see more of the same! I have to admit to really wanting to see a President who is economically competent and a lot more savvy on the World stage.
Like a lot of foreigners, I'll settle for a conservative if he or she can demonstrate some statesmanship, intelligence and economic competence.

Pats726 · 07-19-2006, 02:11 PM

But you also have to have someone you wish to vote for on the ballot. Just getting someone to run is not easy...they ened money..lots of it. Many good candidates in both parties refuse to do it...many should but may not have the millions to or have things in the past that will bring them down (whether it should or not) or do not have the stamina for a long run. So it's as much who is on the ballot...but it's all a game each party sets up. Who will be on the left or right and get the active party players...and if all primaries that count are early and narrow the field..when a late primary is, your candidate may be gone. The process?? Not the best..and then there are conventions...another story..a BAD one.

BruschiOnTap · 07-20-2006, 09:55 PM

Although I agree with the vision of the framers, I think today that model is so twisted that we need a parliamentary system. Or an actual 'regression' to the founding governmental ideals as far as representation (and the electoral college).

***Harry Boy*** · 07-21-2006, 08:28 AM

The "New Democrats" are right this minute trying to figure out a New way to vote so they will always win

Whenever they lose they want a recount, they can't believe "they lost"

***FreeTedWilliams*** · 07-21-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruschiOnTap

Although I agree with the vision of the framers, I think today that model is so twisted that we need a parliamentary system. Or an actual 'regression' to the founding governmental ideals as far as representation (and the electoral college).

The Framers did not trust the people to elect the President, they were still not far enough from their British repressors to "trust" the people. Hence the 12th Amendment (from 1804). This is how we ended up with the electoral college.

Gomezcat the process is basically fixed to the two major parties and it is very hard for a third party canditate to get into the race, and even if a third party canditate gets into the general election, all it does is hurt the candidtate whose views are more closely aligned with the thrid party candidate (Ross Perot took 18.9% of the vote in 1992, if you gave 75% of that vote to George Sr. he wins easily, Perot ran again in 1996 but only received 8% of the vote (note Clinton NEVER GOT MORE THAN 49% of the vote in either election, so basically we can blame Ross Perot for the CLinton years). so whoever wins the Democrat and Republican primaries are the nominees. There is even more layers in this in the primaries, you don't actually vote for the candidates you vote for a "delegate" to your parties convention. So if you were to be an American hating liberal Democrat, in your primary you would vote for the delegate who is affliated with the communist that you want, now laws from state to state differ, some states mandate that each delgate must vote for their candidate at the convention, other states have no such restrictions. So technically you could win all of the Democrat primaries and still not get the nomination, because the delegates do not vote for you. ALso some states are "winner take all" states meaning that if you win the primary, every delegate from that State has to vote for you at the convention, while other states the delegates are issued proportionally to their finish in the primary.
I know that you will be "shocked" to learn that the last time someone tried to undermine the will of the people was in 1980 when Ted Kennedy tried to get the delegates to vote for him, instead of the winner of the most primaries then embarrasment, huh, I mean President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy did not suceed and Carter lost in a landslide.

Now when the general election comes, agains the people don't actually vote for the candidates, they vote for electors to the electoral college, the number of electors is constant (538, the number of Congressmen and Senators plus 3 more for Washington DC) so to win the Presidency you need 270 electoral votes, again some states have mandatory voting laws, and some do not, and all states but two (Maine and Colorado) are "winner take all states" In the last election Bush won 286-252, he won in 2000 271-267, the diffenrence between the two elections was acutally only one state, but since there was a census after the 2000 election, the number of electoral votes that each state changes every ten years. The states that vote for Republicans are growing and the communists states are hermoraging, so regardless of what they think, if they lose the 2008 election, the communists will have a hard time winning another presidential election, because after the 2010 census will again re-align the electoral votes towards the Republican states (red States)

Here are the electoral maps from the last two elections:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...toral.college/

You can see that Bush only won one additional state in 2004, but because fo the realignment of the electoral votes he gained 15 extra electoral votes.

Right about now, your thinking it is just easier to have a Queen isn't it?

***PATSNUTme*** · 07-21-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeTedWilliams

The Framers did not trust the people to elect the President, they were still not far enough from their British repressors to "trust" the people. Hence the 12th Amendment (from 1804). This is how we ended up with the electoral college.

Gomezcat the process is basically fixed to the two major parties and it is very hard for a third party canditate to get into the race, and even if a third party canditate gets into the general election, all it does is hurt the candidtate whose views are more closely aligned with the thrid party candidate (Ross Perot took 18.9% of the vote in 1992, if you gave 75% of that vote to George Sr. he wins easily, Perot ran again in 1996 but only received 8% of the vote (note Clinton NEVER GOT MORE THAN 49% of the vote in either election, so basically we can blame Ross Perot for the CLinton years). so whoever wins the Democrat and Republican primaries are the nominees. There is even more layers in this in the primaries, you don't actually vote for the candidates you vote for a "delegate" to your parties convention. So if you were to be an American hating liberal Democrat, in your primary you would vote for the delegate who is affliated with the communist that you want, now laws from state to state differ, some states mandate that each delgate must vote for their candidate at the convention, other states have no such restrictions. So technically you could win all of the Democrat primaries and still not get the nomination, because the delegates do not vote for you. ALso some states are "winner take all" states meaning that if you win the primary, every delegate from that State has to vote for you at the convention, while other states the delegates are issued proportionally to their finish in the primary.
I know that you will be "shocked" to learn that the last time someone tried to undermine the will of the people was in 1980 when Ted Kennedy tried to get the delegates to vote for him, instead of the winner of the most primaries then embarrasment, huh, I mean President Jimmy Carter. Kennedy did not suceed and Carter lost in a landslide.

Now when the general election comes, agains the people don't actually vote for the candidates, they vote for electors to the electoral college, the number of electors is constant (538, the number of Congressmen and Senators plus 3 more for Washington DC) so to win the Presidency you need 270 electoral votes, again some states have mandatory voting laws, and some do not, and all states but two (Maine and Colorado) are "winner take all states" In the last election Bush won 286-252, he won in 2000 271-267, the diffenrence between the two elections was acutally only one state, but since there was a census after the 2000 election, the number of electoral votes that each state changes every ten years. The states that vote for Republicans are growing and the communists states are hermoraging, so regardless of what they think, if they lose the 2008 election, the communists will have a hard time winning another presidential election, because after the 2010 census will again re-align the electoral votes towards the Republican states (red States)

Here are the electoral maps from the last two elections:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...toral.college/

You can see that Bush only won one additional state in 2004, but because fo the realignment of the electoral votes he gained 15 extra electoral votes.

Right about now, your thinking it is just easier to have a Queen isn't it?

One correction FTW. The two sates are Maine and Nebraska, not Colorado.

I marvel at the briliance of the "framers". Imagine the document that they wrote over 200 years ago, and amended some, was such an incredible piece of work.

And, no matter who benefits every four years, the Electorial College was also brilliant. I know that some want to get rid of it because of the 2000 election. They are being very short sighted. It makes people who live in the smaller states feel as if their vote really counts.

I just regret that this is not taught in school enough. Every American should have atleast a working knowledge of the system that gives them so much freedom and opportunity.