|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: US Primary Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:50:23 am CST (Viewed 3 times)
Reply Subj: Re: US Primary Elections
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 01:04:45 am CST (Viewed 2 times)
> > Of course, the system you propose would tend to favor the (perceived as) more liberal East coast early on, and I suspect Republican primary voters west of the Mississippi might complain that more conservative candidates were being pushed out by the earlier primaries.
> So if a understand you right, you are saying that my proposal would pick more liberal candidates?
No -- I use the words "perceived as" and state that certain people "might complain." Their complaints may well be empty or factitious, but you would still see them arising as voluble political opposition to your plan. That was my only point.
> A key point is that the east coast isn't liberal, its the northeast. The southeast is conservative. Of the first primaries, you would have a mixture of both northern and southern states. Plus, this is just the primaries, so Republicans would only vote for Republicans.
> Are you suggesting that the western Republicans are more conservative than the eastern (and southern) Republicans? I don't think thats true.
No, I'm saying that Western Republican rhetoric tends to involve a great deal of resentment of the East coast in general, and that such rhetoric would become the mode of opposition to the reform you suggest.
> Are you saying that the degree to which a Republican is conservative can be generalized based on what state they live in? I don't think thats true.
No, I'm not; I'm talking about perception, not reality, in a country and world where people vote for perception more often than for reality.
> I don't think that where a candidate is from matters that much in the primaries. The fact that McCain is from Arizona probably isn't that big of a deal. If you could measure someones political ideas from where they live then your statement would be true, but you can't. Most states are highly contested, with about 50% Dems and 50% Reps. Look at Colorado, 1.1 million voted for Bush, 1 million voted for Kerry. So if someone is from Colorado, would you say they are Republican or Democrat? You can't make an accurate guess there.
> Also, it wouldn't strictly be a east to west schedule and you would have to jump around alot.
> The states this would hurt the most are the midwest/rockies region states, since their primaries would be held last. But their primaries are already really insignificant and they don't have a high population. So if a candidate swept the earlier primaries and would win without those states might just skip them all together. But thats really what they do now. One way to fix this is to just make it a requirement that all viable candidates visit each state at least once.
Actually, it'd hurt the West coast the most. The midwestern states have years on California, for example. And you might as well not bother voting if you live in Hawaii or Alaska.
> And let me say, I just made that primary idea up on the spot, I'm sure there are flaws to the idea (like candidates ignoring the midwest/newest states). But I don't think you can say this idea is biased since there is so much diversity in order of the primaries.
> I could be wrong.
I'm not calling it biased, I'm saying that it'd be accused of regionalism if someone actually tried to make it happen.
- Omar Karindu
"A Renoir. I have three, myself. I had four, but ordered one burned...It displeased me." -- Doctor Doom
"It's not, 'Oh, they killed Sue Dibney and I always loved that character,' it's 'Oh, they broke a story engine that could have told a thousand stories in order to publish a single 'important' one.'" -- John Seavey
Posted with Apple Safari 3.0.4 on MacOS X
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|