9 times out of 10 I do ignore him but it doesnt stop him. His obsession is endless.

I came here to stay on topic about politics and look what's happened?

I've previously declared my interest in elections and the different systems used around the world to achieve this purpose. I've also been respectful of (and indeed learnt a few things from) posts about the domestic political situation in the US as well even though it has little bearing on me as an Australian.

That's what is great about the US system, there's a new primary or caucus every week to look at. The system is so decentralised too so they're are a lot of quirks that really should be reformed in my opinion.

Edited by mcjules: 7/3/2016 02:40:51 PM

I can't believe how derailed this thread has gotten all thanks to people going of on obsessed topics.

These obsessions are unbelievable

I was most surprised to learn that a candidate can run for a party with the party virtually powerless to stop them (Trump).

Seems absolutely crazy to me.

Yeah, a process where the people can elect their leader, democracy.
Crazy concept.

And therein lies the delegate problem.

Yes I like the idea of it but it's problematic, people who vote at the moment are not voting for the president but a person to represent the party in the presidential election. Open primaries make no sense at all to me in this context and in the others I believe the power is too heavily weighted towards the rank and file when ultimately, elected officials of the party need to be able work with whoever is elected to run as their candidate.

I think the democratic "super delegate" system is good because it gives some of that power back to those people. Whether the balance is right or not, I'm not sure at this stage.

Really there should be no reason why Drumpf can't run as an independent but the practical system to be put into the election (as Azza outlined earlier) as well as the "political culture" there seems to make it impossible.

Exactly, its a complete mess. If the people side with Trump for the Republican nomination, the Republicans who don't want him are almost forced to back an independent.

What is the sense of having parties if the parties cannot choose their candidates?

Primaries are democratic but I'm not sold on them - they encourage extremism (Trump/the Tea Party movement) while at the same time entrenching the two party system, since the only way for fringe candidates to gain traction is to run in the primaries rather than challenge the traditional parties as an independent in the general election.

FOTM vs the world is over. Just stop. And anyone who potentially gets dragged into it in future - just stop, don't bite. Please.

If the ricecrackers multis aren't ricecrackers himself I am so furious with whoever thinks it's funny. It's not even remotely witty or anything. Just stop.

Next up is IP bans, I swear.

Stop this garbage.

As always, PM me with any issues. Thankyou to those gems who have already done so to help self-police this place. The RBB could take a lesson from you all.

I'm not sure if it was you or not who brought up media power but the whole media campaign really has an effect. Debates and what not between candidates gets the nation talking. If you're an independent, how do you get enough media coverage to remain relevant?

Edited by bethfc: 7/3/2016 03:31:50 PM

Be Donald Trump. That's about it.

Exactly what I was getting at, unless you're extraordinarily wealthy you haven't got a chance.

I guess money talks whether you're independent or not. But I guess participating in a party debate and primaries kind of counts as free advertising :-k

You want to get into the news and that's part of the reason why these party debates are done so publicly.

The real issue in the USA is low voter turnout and voluntary voting. It means that small but passionate groups have an unusual level of influence beyond their numbers.

Hardly anyone votes in primaries or congressional elections.

Even presidential elections average around 50% turnout.

This is why US politics is so messed up. They try to "fire up" their voting Base rather than appeal to the rational,but boring, centre.

On the super delegate system. Wether you like it or you don't like it, if the people vote for Sanders and Clinton gets the nomination because the establishment puts its fingers on the scales, the Democratic party needs to change its name.

I find your Germanophobia problematic McJules.

I've found a few of your posts reprehensible in the past but that was humorous :lol:

Why? The candidate would have been elected democratically :-k

How exactly? These senators, governors, congressmen have the right to vote in their home states just like everyone else. If they want to be the party that rigs it against the people and for the less popular candidate thats fine, but change the name of the party.

Senators, governors and congressmen themselves are democratically elected representatives of their party. Additionally they're the people that actually have to work with whoever becomes the president so it's right that they have a significant say. They're not deciding on who becomes president, they're deciding on who is going to represent their party in the presidential election. There's a significant difference.

It is a train crash that the world can't turn their eyes off.as funny as the John Oliver stuff is.

Democratically elected to represent the people, in this case the registered democrats that elected them and the eventual nominee.

As for the rest of your sentiment, they can run the party however they like but if they are called the democratic party it is absolutely ironic at best, and entirely corrupt at worst.

It would also just embolden all of Sanders supporters who have been told this whole time that Clinton is the establishment despite all her claims not to be.

In spite of all this, I expect the superdelagates to vote with the people regardless because what they care about more than who they have to work with is keeping their own job and if 50+1% of the base is for Sanders they can expect to get primaried.

The primaries system just isn't very democratic anyway, as has already been explained.

Aside from that, the fact something is more democratic doesn't automatically make it a better system - there's a balance to be struck between democratic principles and practical outcomes. If making the system as democratic as possible were the objective then we'd get rid of politicians altogether and hold a referendum on every single law - an obviously unworkable idea.

Arguing that the system needs to change simply because it's not as democratic as it could be isn't especially convincing; electoral systems need to be about balance.

Democratically nominated to be the represent the party candidate in the presidential election. If the candidate wins that election, then they have been elected to represent the people.


A bunch of elected officials of the democratic party plus some delegates chosen to proportionally represent the rank and file members of the party (and in some states the public which I think is odd), vote to nominate the party's candidate at the election. It's entirely democratic.


I'm sure all these things will be in the superdelegates minds when they vote.

Unsure if this has already been posted in here.

Jeb and Rand look like the kind of guys you could have a beer with.

Funny point raised on Q&A - Democrats are registering as Republicans to get Donald up in the primaries
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm telling you it's an inside job to get him against Hillary where he will tank hard in an actual election.

-PB