Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Problem there is that if states buck the party, they can suffer serious penalties. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but the DNC and RNC have the ability to punish any state that tries to defy the rules of primary order.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The national party should definitely have full say in the scheduling. Iowa and New Hampshire do serve a purpose: you start off in smaller states which are easier to negotiate. If there was one national primary day, small candidates would lose out because they couldn't effectively mobilize everywhere. If a state like NY or Texas came first, small candidates would still have a hard time dealing with massive media markets.
I'd make it four "starter states" that run over the course of February: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Louisiana, hitting four distinct regions with different population spreads, but none of them are a really big state. Then knock everything else out in March and April with a series of Super Tuesdays every two weeks. Block off the remaining 46 states into four groups geographically: Northeast, Southeast, Central, and West, each has a super every two weeks, giving some breathing time for candidates to refocus campaigns or decide to drop out, but each chunk of states is large enough that it will be less likely that anyone will be excluded because they're too late in the game to count.
Frankly, if I were given carte blanche to overhaul the system, I'd have both primaries and elections controlled at the national level. Any candidate who can submit a certain number of signatures in a petition can get on the primary ballot for a given party.
There is a pre-determined pool of ad space that is reserved for all the candidates; they get equal time irrespective of their standing in the polls. There is a single national primary ballot for each party, followed by a runoff round if no candidate has a clear majority. If the ballot is still contested, the national party delegates would decide it. There is no state-by-state breakdown for President; a national majority is required.
Then there's another block of broadcast media space that's reserved for the nominees leading up to the national election. Similarly to the primaries, states have no direct effect on the election; victory requires a simple majority.
edited 1st Feb '16 11:26:42 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I, on the other hand, would replace the election system entirely with a system of absolute governance by a monarch appointed by me. The monarch would, of course, be me.
Things would run pretty smoothly for a time as I work on addressing all the problems with America, but eventually I would die and my heirs would inherit the throne. Being spoiled little shits, they would take full advantage of their absolute power and rapidly drive the country into the ground.
Eventually a revolution would be formed to strike back against the tyrannical horror I've created from my well-intentioned zeal, afterwhich the people would look to themselves and ask, "Why on Earth did we give a power-hungry madman carte blanche to overhaul the system?"
Democracy would be restored with a new Constitutional Amendment that just says, "Never do that again," and has a picture of George Washington doing a frowny face.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I would only attempt that if I had some way to make myself nigh-immortal and nigh-invulnerable (and preferably prescient) so I could rule as a literal God Emperor as opposed to a mortal who could be knocked off by any dude who gets exercised enough.
edited 1st Feb '16 12:08:37 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yeah, Hillary has more than earned her place as a respected statesman and politician, and anyone seriously comparing her to Trump in terms of qualifications needs to have their ears inspected for brain leakage.
edited 1st Feb '16 11:56:08 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"She's also not used who she's married to as a qualification. She's basically pushed the things she's done that she feels qualifies her. (She's certainly talked about her husband's policies, actions, and decisions, but that's been in elaborating on what she'd do or criticizing them. Farthest thing from "my husband was once president, so you should totally vote for me.)
If anything, it's been Fox News that have pushed that idea, and even then not that much at all.
Alternatively, "vote for the theocracy".
edited 1st Feb '16 12:13:04 PM by Nihlus1
![]()
I'll be honest, the people pushing that idea sound awfully like they represent the misogynistic crowd that thinks that "statesman" is a male-only occupation. It's unmistakably been present throughout the race; one notable time was when her ability to commit to the race was questioned over the birth of her grandchild. Nobody would ever make that kind of remark about a male candidate.
The sad part is that it exists on both sides of the aisle and across all political demographics, even among some notional feminists, presumably thanks to Internalized Categorism.
edited 1st Feb '16 12:15:41 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I considered saying the most notable thing she has achieved was "the highest number of political scandals without actual prison time," but I don't think the e-mail scandal has played out all the way yet.
To be fair, George W. Bush most likely wouldn't have been president if his dad wasn't who he was.
edited 1st Feb '16 12:21:05 PM by Bense
Yeah, no. Not gonna buy that argument in the least. Otherwise there would be a lot more former First Ladies who aspired to and won political office. Hillary had political ambition from day one. She married Bill with that in mind and only subordinated herself to him until she could burst out in her own right.
And frankly, that's the kind of argument that gets you an invitation to the "Men are Self-Made, Women are Married to Them" philosophy club where you can smoke cigars with the rest of the dinosaurs.
edited 1st Feb '16 12:28:12 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm just calling it like I see it. It's her political connections (yes, primarily her husband) that have brought her to this point, not her personal achievements.
The New York Times summed up her achievements as Secretary of State in their endorsement of her candidacy:
In January 2011, before the Arab Spring, Mrs. Clinton delivered a speech that criticized Arab leaders, saying their countries risked “sinking into the sand” unless they liberalized their political systems and cleaned up their economies. Certainly, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis deepened during her tenure, but she did not cause that.
Just wow. If I didn't think you were serious, I'd troll thump you for that.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I'd rather the preview states change up every cycle, so we don't get what people are complaining about with Iowa and New Hampshire.
@Fighteer- Your idea has its own problems. A lot of them. But as long as we're doing complete reappraisals of the government, I'd just switch things to a multiparty system. Fuck the two party duopoly bullshit.
edited 1st Feb '16 12:43:01 PM by FFShinra

Thats what I was talking about earlier, how if the candidate decided by Iowa ends up losing the election or even the nomination, the other state parties and the national party would have the leverage needed to throw them off their perch on the calendar. State can decide whatever it wants, but other states can too, and can screw up their prestige by, say, holding their primaries the same day.
As for making it shorter, I personally would like it to be shorter too, but I doubt it ever will. Way too much money to be made.
EDIT-
edited 1st Feb '16 9:54:03 AM by FFShinra