eyeball Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 There's rarely even any neutral ground If I had a vote for every time some dweeb refers to Trudeau or Chretien when I diss Harper I'd constitute a one-man voting bloc and be a real force to reckon with in a pizza government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Yes, usually that's the art of the deal. You give up something to get something. Regardless of who you think is a douch or a turd, a vote is better than no vote at all. Heck, primary voters might reject her again and go with somebody else. You already have given up a lot if your only two choices are between a douche or a turd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 You already have given up a lot if your only two choices are between a douche or a turd. You need to probably grow up a little. There's multiple choices, but through the primary process, it gets down to two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 You need to probably grow up a little. There's multiple choices, but through the primary process, it gets down to two. Actually you only have two choices. The narrowing down is done by the political parties, not by citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Actually you only have two choices. The narrowing down is done by the political parties, not by citizens. Nope. Primary voters are the ones that decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Nope. Primary voters are the ones that decide. Nope. First it depends if the state has primaries or caucus. In either case they elect delegates who then select their parties nominee. And the the electoral college selects the president anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Nope. Primary voters are the ones that decide. Proving my point even more Shady, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 There's rarely even any neutral ground If I had a vote for every time some dweeb refers to Trudeau or Chretien when I diss Harper I'd constitute a one-man voting bloc and be a real force to reckon with in a pizza government. As it happens, in this context both Trudeau and Chretien had generally shitty relations with US presidents. Trudeau had a distinctly different view from the US on foreign policy, Chretien had no discernible policy in general, part of his 'do-nothing' approach. Harper is somewhere in between- more outspoken but generally in tune with our allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Nope. First it depends if the state has primaries or caucus. In either case they elect delegates who then select their parties nominee. And the the electoral college selects the president anyway.None of that disproves what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Proving my point even more Shady, thanks.No, it's actually the opposite of proving your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 No, it's actually the opposite of proving your point. I don't know what you mean? Care to explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 I don't know what you mean? Care to explain? I don't know what you mean either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 None of that disproves what I said. Just corrects it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Just corrects it. Not really, although I appreciate the input. There are very few caucus states. The vast majority are primary process. Many have open primary, where any registered voter can participate. Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Not really, although I appreciate the input. There are very few caucus states. The vast majority are primary process. Many have open primary, where any registered voter can participate. Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Who elect delegates who in turn select nominees. Done by the party as GH suggested earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Who elect delegates who in turn select nominees. Done by the party as GH suggested earlier. Who 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time vote as per how their state voted. So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Who 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time vote as per how their state voted. So what? I'll take 'What is 'gerrymandering' for 1000, Alex!' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 I'll take 'What is 'gerrymandering' for 1000, Alex!' What does gerrymandering have to do with primary or presidential elections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 What does gerrymandering have to do with primary or presidential elections? That's ok if you do not understand what that means and how it can affect presidential elections. Then again, yer man Bush got to the White House via a Florida court and not the election process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 That's ok if you do not understand what that means and how it can affect presidential elections. Then again, yer man Bush got to the White House via a Florida court and not the election process. Please explain how gerrymandering impacts electing a president, governor or senator. Popular vote elects governors, senators and awards states to presidential candidates. What does it matter what district a vote comes from in a particular state? Do you even know what gerrymandering is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Please explain how gerrymandering impacts electing a president, governor or senator. Popular vote elects governors, senators and awards states to presidential candidates. What does it matter what district a vote comes from in a particular state? Do you even know what gerrymandering is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering "In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. The resulting district apportionment is known as a gerrymander (/ˈdʒɛriˌmændər/); however, that word can also refer to the process. When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term gerrymandering has negative connotations." Come on Shady, there are obtuse angles, and then there is you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering "In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts. The resulting district apportionment is known as a gerrymander (/ˈdʒɛriˌmændər/); however, that word can also refer to the process. When used to allege that a given party is gaining disproportionate power, the term gerrymandering has negative connotations." Come on Shady, there are obtuse angles, and then there is you. Like I said, please explain how that would effect a primary vote, a vote for governor, or senator, or even president? Which district a vote comes from doesn't matter. You're just digging yourself a hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) What does gerrymandering have to do with primary or presidential elections? A lot of constituencies have been gerrymandered down to such a fine degree that it's virtually impossible for a democrat to win. This means the Republican primary (and in some cases the Democratic primary) becomes the defacto election. The rise of the Tea Party is largely based on the gerrymandering which has created rock solid Republican districts which allow almost any kind of lunatic to be elected as long as they're a Republican. So you take some far right loonie with silly ideas, but money behind him, well, all he has to do is convince enough people to support him in a primary (which are notoriously poorly attended). In some states less than 10% of eligible registered voters vote in primaries. This leaves them rife to be influenced by a small, determined band who can get their supporters out (ie, far right Christians). Once they're the Republican candidate, they're virtually a shoe-in to win the following election. Edited March 25, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) A lot of constituencies have been gerrymandered down to such a fine degree that it's virtually impossible for a democrat to win. This means the Republican primary (and in some cases the Democratic primary) becomes the defacto election. The rise of the Tea Party is largely based on the gerrymandering which has created rock solid Republican districts which allow almost any kind of lunatic to be elected as long as they're a Republican. So you take some far right loonie with silly ideas, but money behind him, well, all he has to do is convince enough people to support him in a primary (which are notoriously poorly attended). In some states less than 10% of eligible registered voters vote in primaries. This leaves them rife to be influenced by a small, determined band who can get their supporters out (ie, far right Christians). Once they're the Republican candidate, they're virtually a shoe-in to win the following election. You're absolutely correct that gerrymandering can impact elections for the House of Representatives. But it has absolutely no impact on elections for governors, senators, and presidents. That's the point I was trying to get across to GH. But for some reason he was having trouble understanding. Edited March 25, 2015 by Shady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 You're absolutely correct that gerrymandering can impact elections for the House of Representatives. But it has absolutely no impact on elections for governors, senators, and presidents. Not necessarily true. http://www.thenation.com/blog/171690/gops-new-voter-suppression-strategy-gerrymander-electoral-college# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.