[Sleuth]

What's wrong with the way the Dems do it? they will eventually have to decide if they want the guy most people voted for or the girl who claims to be more electable. As Ron Paul said the other day (about the GOP) what's the point in having a convention if everything is decided already?
And the primaries have to be run this way. If every state went to the polls on the same day, it would almost always favor the person with the biggest organizations and most money. More of a coronation than an election. This year, Hillary would have trounced Obama.
And Climber07 makes a great point about Algore. He was a sitting VP of a (still) popular two-term President, during peace with a booming economy and he couldn't clearly win. And even if you don't like the way he lost, that's the way the system works.
Finally, the electoral college was not the greatest idea from the Founders. But it certainly beats the other systems.
In the UK now the Conservatives need to come out with some solid policies, but they can't because they don't know when an election will be called and if they come out with their policies too early they will either be stolen or so full of holes by the time things begin they'll be useless.
And then there is "democracy" in HK....

[chan13y]

Actually if you look at all the "legitimate" candidates in this election campaign, you'll find that the center has actually shifted to the right quite drastically.

John McCain is the furthest thing from a "maverick" centrist like he's always touted as. He used to live up to this title, but has since within the past couple years, decided to kneel down to the powers that be and give in to his presidential ambitions. He embraces evangelical leaders (like John Hagee and Pat Robertson) that say things like Hurricane Katrina was brought upon the city of New Orleans by the people itself because of the deep amount of sin within it, and that Islam should be destroyed.

And despite the way the media portrays them, Senators Obama and Clinton are far from leftists, and actually more towards the center (although "center" in the American electoral definition is a very relative term). Considering Senator Clinton's hawkish persistence in antagonizing Iran and her voting record in the senate, I'd have to believe that she would likely just follow the same policies as the previous Clinton administration (insert memories of bombing the bejeezus out of Bosnia and its citizens here). Senator Obama is no better, he wouldn't pull out mercenaries from Iraq (clearly the most unreliable "troops" there), and despite his insistence that he'll institute measures to make them more accountable, recall that they said they'd do the same thing with the infrastructure contractors there... I don't think I ever heard anything about that since (although I did hear about KBR and their terrible troop-killing faulty wirings). Senator Obama also intends to continue the vast American empire that people seem to rarely want to talk about, with bases on every single continent and continuing hegemony. I don't see how this is any different than any past administration, whether Republican or Democrat.

The mainstream journalists are a big problem with this election campaign. How can you have a serious dialogue on issues when they parrot this business of lapel flag pins, guilty-by-association politics, and "blackness"? I have a serious issue with the fact that the media is so obsessed with sound-bytes that they forget to talk about the real issues facing real people. As dramatic as it is to see the politicians duking it out over the "Ballot Bowl" on CNN and watching John King play with his big touch-screen LCD TV, I'd rather know about WHY things are crumbling (economy) and WHY terrorism even exists (which has absolutely no connection to jealousy of American "freedom and democracy"). In regards to Al Gore, the only reason he lost is because this joke of a free press blatantly misquoted him over and over, and portrayed him as a sang-froid politician that was clearly elitist (sound familiar?) and then turned around and portrayed George W. Bush as a down-to-earth fun-loving guy. Gore's campaign was a poor run, yes, but it was a problem clearly exacerbated by the mainstream press shaping dialogue and manipulating context. Whatever happened to fairness and accuracy in reporting?

The fundamental problem with the American election system is that the elections are so fueled by the influence of the mainstream media (which clearly is giving a pass to Senator McCain and beating this Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue the way kids poke dead animals with sticks: ad nauseum) and the need for a vast amount of financial capital that it snuffs out the voices of people with any ideas other than what comes out of that wonderful building called the Senate House. Let's not even talk about the electoral college votes. OR the idea of superdelegates, probably the most fundamentally undemocratic system that has ever been concocted.

All this points to a flawed system that is in desperate need of fixing. A good start is making available (in mainstream media) the dialogue for such change to happen.

[Mat]

- 1 person = 1 vote,
- no super delegate,
- every states with the same policy (no winner takes all...)
- forbidden to issue poll (media..) the last 1 or 2 weeks before the election
- election on the same day on each states
- no republican or independant can vote for dem & vice versa

it would already look a bit more like a real Democratic system...

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by chan13y

Actually if you look at all the "legitimate" candidates in this election campaign, you'll find that the center has actually shifted to the right quite drastically.

I have a serious issue with the fact that the media is so obsessed with sound-bytes that they forget to talk about the real issues facing real people.

Whatever happened to fairness and accuracy in reporting?

The fundamental problem with the American election system is that the elections are so fueled by the influence of the mainstream media

and the need for a vast amount of financial capital that it snuffs out the voices of people

Let's not even talk about the electoral college votes. OR the idea of superdelegates, probably the most fundamentally undemocratic system that has ever been concocted.

All this points to a flawed system that is in desperate need of fixing. A good start is making available (in mainstream media) the dialogue for such change to happen.

Yes, America is a right of center country, especially when compared to places like the EU. Probably always has been.

Is it the media that is obsessed with sound bites? Or is the public? Are you arguing that the public really wants formal, college debating team style debates between candidates but the media won't allow it? Whilst I would be in favor of those types of debates, I venture to say the ratings would be so low they'd never be broadcast.

Fairness and accuracy in reporting? There has never been such a thing. Even if they won't admit it, each journalist brings his individual prejudices to bear in every story and they will never be fair nor accurate. But each story will always have at least two sides, so both fairness and accuracy will always be relative.

In a country as big as America, the mainstream media is about the only way to get the message out. Now, of course, you have the internet also. And each side blames the media for being against them, so the media can't be all one-sided.

Same thing for the money. Use of the mainstream media requires money and lots of it. As does maintaining an organization in 50 states. I'd like to see that influence end, but how would you do it?

I'm with you on the electoral college and we won't discuss it. But, on the superdelegates, did you mean to say "ever been concocted by a democratic country"? I think the superdelegates were a political compromise to get the new rules through the party (but I could be wrong on that). But I don't think that even the Dems like the way the superdelegates are going to play out. Seemed like a nice way to schmooze with important people at the convention when they decided to use them. I doubt they ever believed the superdelegates would ever actually be deciding anything. Bet they change this for next time.

Flawed? Yes. Desperate? Hardly. Like Churchill said, the worst system ever devised, except for all the others.

I think I agree with a lot of your points, but the devil is in the details. It is easy to sit here when I should be working and poke at the faults, but what are the fixes? And I don't know. I don't know how to get money out of politics, I don't know how to get more than a sound bite on a policy.

It would be nice to be able to pick the policies that I think are important, then have a semi-long recap from each candidate. And don't tell me which candidate's policy I am reading. That way I can pick the policy I like and then see which candidate is backing it. Or something like that. That was an off the top of my head thought.

[Lammarite]

Originally Posted by Sleuth

Is it the media that is obsessed with sound bites? Or is the public?

They play to the lowest common denominator which is about 60% of the US voters- if not more.

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by Mat

- 1 person = 1 vote,
- no super delegate,
- every states with the same policy (no winner takes all...)
- forbidden to issue poll (media..) the last 1 or 2 weeks before the election
- election on the same day on each states
- no republican or independant can vote for dem & vice versa

it would already look a bit more like a real Democratic system...

Yes on one person, one vote and no cross party voting. Although you eliminate a lot of potential voters by eliminating independents. Perhaps as independent can vote in one primary, but not the other?
And each party/state has to have the same rules. If the GOP were still struggling under the Dem system, the Dems wouldn't be so worried. But, havingseen this, the GOP will never adopt the Dem system, so I bet the Dems go back to the old way.
Why forbid polls? Afraid people will just back the apparent winner? Those people can't possibly care who wins.
Running every primary on the same day would favor the bigger bank roll and organization. Would also favor use of the mainstream media because you have to be able to talk to everyone at once.

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by Lammarite

They play to the lowest common denominator which is about 60% of the US voters- if not more.

They play to the ratings and, therefore, the advertising dollars.

[jimbo]

Originally Posted by Sleuth

Running every primary on the same day would favor the bigger bank roll and organization. Would also favor use of the mainstream media because you have to be able to talk to everyone at once.

Or have a restriction on the party budget to even out the playing field.

[Claire ex-ax]

I've been trying to remember what Bill Bernbach said in Propaganda (at least I think it was in that book, too many years have passed since I read it) about the US president - not the candidate - being chosen by a handful of men. Does anyone else remember that bit?

[Mat]

Originally Posted by Sleuth

.
Running every primary on the same day would favor the bigger bank roll and organization. Would also favor use of the mainstream media because you have to be able to talk to everyone at once.

Not if budgets are capped