[climber07]

Originally Posted by Mat

1 person = 1 vote

Can you define a "person" for these purposes?

Is is simply a human being with a pulse? Does age matter? What about mental state (i.e. influence of alcohol, or drugs?), mental health and/or disability, literacy (ability to read/write), intelligence (or even simply knowledge of current issues and/or platforms of the candidate the "person" is voting for), geopolitical knowledge?

Just curious....

[Mat]

Originally Posted by climber07

Can you define a "person" for these purposes?

Is is simply a human being with a pulse? Does age matter? What about mental state (i.e. influence of alcohol, or drugs?), mental health and/or disability, literacy (ability to read/write), intelligence (or even simply knowledge of current issues and/or platforms of the candidate the "person" is voting for), geopolitical knowledge?

Just curious....

Ok smarty pants,
1 Registered Voter = 1 vote

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by Mat

Not if budgets are capped

Good point.
How are you going to guarantee all candidates reach the cap? Set it really low or have the public finance it?
Being a fiscal conservative, I hate the idea of the public financing any more than they already finance.
But, if the public financed it and you managed to get rid of all other fund raising I might go with it.
Getting rid of direct fund raising might be easy, but indirect would be hard. If I run/pay for an ad supporting a candidate, does that count as fundraising? Restricting this type of activity is, at the least, treading in the penumbras of shadows of free speech. I would argue it is closer to simply being illegal to restrict this type of speech.

[chan13y]

@Sleuth:

I agree with you that yes, it is easy to sit in front of our computers and whine and complain about what's wrong with the system and that certainly what's truly needed is a solution.

You're correct in that the superdelegates were a concession by the Democratic Party. They were put in place after George McGovern's disastrous election campaign back in the 70s. I believe the party elders were trying to make sure that a man like George McGovern, who was perceived as weak by his own party (after the fact, of course), would not get nominated again. But the true fact about their creation, as read on huffingtonpost.com, is that they were implemented, basically, as a tool to usurp the public decision on a nominee. Because the number of superdelegates in relation to the total number of delegates would likely give them that power.

And I hope that I didn't misunderstand this sentence, but like you said, the devil is in the details. Meaning that anyone that is a citizen of their own country should really be practicing good civic duty by simply doing an easy web search of what a candidate's policies are and at least understand how their political system works, roughly. One has to know the truth about what's wrong before they can go out as the town crier.

That's why this is such a multi-faceted issue:
a) We need to know the truth to be good citizens
b) "Truth" is what is fed to us by our news media, which may or may not be doing their job
c) News media panders to the lowest common denominator and our most base instincts of sex, conflict, and drama
d) Sex, conflict, and drama shroud our other human capacity for stoic judgment
e) Our stoic judgment is measured in our capacity to be good citizens
f) Recycle a/b/c/d/e/f

Certainly, I don't have the answers, but the opportunity to talk about possible answers is always a benefit. Were more people to actually discuss the specificities of policy issues without boiling them down to one-liners than perhaps people would also be more aware of other things, like the FISA amendments and such (which was getting television advertising airtime on CNN in support of it).

[meiguoren]

Originally Posted by chan13y

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.

You must realize that this is the first election in a LOOOONG time where only senators are the main candidates? Clinton was a Governor, Bush I was a Governor, Bush II was a Governor...etc etc and their policy was not really formed or dictated by any senators or the senate itself

Also this idea that political parties have an obligation to follow the will of the people is really against American values. Parties are private organizations and should not be expected to eliminate superdelegates especially considering the open nature of some of the primaries (where non-party members are allowed to vote). Now the electoral college is however a relic of an era where the literacy rate was piss poor but the beauty of the system is not that it is perfect but that the people can change it at will without having to start a war. Eventually they will but right now no one seems to care much.

[Sleuth]

Originally Posted by meiguoren

You must realize that this is the first election in a LOOOONG time where only senators are the main candidates? Clinton was a Governor, Bush I was a Governor, Bush II was a Governor...etc etc and their policy was not really formed or dictated by any senators or the senate itself

Also this idea that political parties have an obligation to follow the will of the people is really against American values. Parties are private organizations and should not be expected to eliminate superdelegates especially considering the open nature of some of the primaries (where non-party members are allowed to vote). Now the electoral college is however a relic of an era where the literacy rate was piss poor but the beauty of the system is not that it is perfect but that the people can change it at will without having to start a war. Eventually they will but right now no one seems to care much.

As a matter of fact, nominating a Sentaor is usually a terrible idea. They almost always lose because they end up defending years of public votes and Senatorial politics is a mess. (Just because I vote in favor of a bill, doesn't mean that I support the bill. It might be the best compromise, it might have a certain section that I think I have to have, it might be a political trade-off,etc....)

And you make a valid point about the parties. The parties exist to elect candidates, not to respond to the will of the people. Just like the parties do not exist to promote liberalism nor conservatisim. Those are movements, not parties. For most of US history, nominees came out of the proverbial "smoke-filled back room". Nothing to do with the will of the people. But, of course, a party would have a rather hard time electing a candidate if it ignored the will of its most likely voters.