Gene Honda Civic Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I was replying to a responce in the State of the Union thread, and I got completely side tracked. I was thinking about the whole process by which we elect a president, and thinking what a terrible system we have... Read on I think I have some valid points, this goes across party lines. ********************************************** Here's what I don't get about the whole process.... The US population is over 292 MIL people... The record participation for voters in the Iowa caususes was in 1988 when less than 250,000 votes were cast... But in that year there was both republican and democratic candidates... in order to participate in a primary you must be a registered voter. and be registered with one party... You can't vote across party lines... So about half of the 250,000 people were allowed to participate this year... So about 125,000 peoples opinions,that's .04% of the population, is all we'll here about for the next two weeks. When we have another really small state (NH), who usually is so progressive that they don't represent the etire country accurately at all, and thier .04%* of the population,(* this number may not be accurate, but I'm done researching) whittling out more candidates. I am a registered voter, but have no true party ties... I've voted democrat, independant, and Green parties.. I would say that I fall in the "Undecided" category. Now the Undecided voters are the ones who actually DECIDE the election. But doesn't this process eliminate the true undecided voter? Why does such a small sample of ONLY one state, which only has 7 (NH had 4 in 2000) electoral votes, go so far in determining who will come to represent the Democratic party, and untimately decide the presidency? Notice all of the first primaries are from the small states, the ones with few electoral votes... Isn't this an artificial way inflating one portion of the countries influence on the rest? The media plays far too large of a roll in this whole game.... I understand there is a need to report on the winners and losers, but the whole psychological effect that the reporting creates.... Reports were that Kerry had an almost 10% surge in popularity in New Hampshire. Why? because he won in Iowa. Now it's likely that he will be able to carry that momentum into NH, SC and eventually through a war of attrition, (candidates who do well in the polls get more money) he will likely end up with the democratic nomination. Nobody wins the nomination in these small first primaries, but the nomination can certainly be lost(Gephardt). So again I ask WHY? Why do we let such a small sample of people control who is going to represent such a large number of people. Remember in 2000 more than 50% of the people did not vote for Bush, he didn't even have the most votes. The entire system needs to be challenged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Cause there are no minorities in Iowa. And anyway it makes sense not to be able to vote in primaries across party lines. Republicans could just vote for the fringe Democratic candidates and vice versa. Having the primaries in small states may be inflating one region's influence, but then again so is giving California 87 electoral votes or however many they have. The system is messed up, but damned if I know how to fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Cause there are no minorities in Iowa And what are minorties, chopped liver? Whitey gotta stop buying into this superiority BS, it's sickenimg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 And what are minorties, chopped liver? Whitey gotta stop buying into this superiority BS, it's sickenimg. That's my point. That first statement should have been in green but I hate the whole green concept so I didn't use it. Don't think I'm being racist, because that's not what I meant at all. I was just making a wild observation, but an interesting one nonetheless. Iowa is probably one of the whitest states in the country, and like the cheat said it is a huge factor in deciding who gets elected. Same with New Hampshire. I can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with it, considering white people hold most of the power in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I can't help but wonder if it has anything to do with it, considering white people hold most of the power in this country. I believe Whitey holds the power in the rest of the world as well. I find your observation to be an astute one, first thing that flashed through my (albeit paranoid) mind, but I wasn't sure if I shuld say anything. Minorities can't seem to catch a break in this election game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I always assumed it was to give states that don't necessarily have major political say, an opportunity to recieve national spotlight. Plus, if they started it off in California, essentially the nomination process could be over because it is such a large sample to the point that the winner in that region would likely be the winner of the democratic party. By going to a smaller state, you give more candidates the opportunity to make runs, etc. I don't really know much about the entire caucus, but I also know there are a few states that allow republicans to vote in democratic caucuses and vice versa or at least I thought there are. And I think the major reason the parties are blocked is because these caucuses are essentially for party members to vote for who they want to represent their party. If your an independent then I think your vote doesn't get heard then, because you aren't essentially a member of the party and the party wants the people loyal to it, picking its candidates to represent them for the president. It would almost be like me or you voting for some union when we really aren't a part of it. It wouldn't necessarily be fair to put the decision of outsiders on the members of the union. Far fetched example, but its all I could think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Cause there are no minorities in Iowa. And anyway it makes sense not to be able to vote in primaries across party lines. Republicans could just vote for the fringe Democratic candidates and vice versa. Having the primaries in small states may be inflating one region's influence, but then again so is giving California 87 electoral votes or however many they have. The system is messed up, but damned if I know how to fix it. Thats the whole reason that we have an electoral college so we avoid having a few populous states deciding the fate of the country. As much as some folks cry about the electoral college process after 2000 it is the best and fairest way to serve the interests of the whole country come election day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Thats the whole reason that we have an electoral college so we avoid having a few populous states deciding the fate of the country. As much as some folks cry about the electoral college process after 2000 it is the best and fairest way to serve the interests of the whole country come election day. We do have a few populous states deciding the fate of the country though. Win California, Texas, New York and Pennsylvania and you are set. 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.