• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Something that would simplify the election process

Soapweed

Well-known member
The whole political election process needs revamped. There is no sense to the fact that a few key states, who hold their primary elections early, get to pick the candidates for everyone. A simple solution would be for all states to hold their primaries on the same day. The general election every two years in the United States falls on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. If all states held their primaries on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in May, that would be an even six months before the general election. All the candidates could disperse their propaganda before the May primary, and every state would have a say in who the candidates for the parties would be. The winners of the primaries would have six more months to bombard the populance with their rhetoric before the final showdown in November.

This would appear to be a simple solution to a murky situation. Everyone would have a bit of say with the casting of their votes, and much money could be saved throughout the whole process.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Get rid of all delegates....get rid of the electoral college.....let the popular vote be THE VOTE!

Have states hold their primary elections in alphabetical order.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Get rid of all delegates....get rid of the electoral college.....let the popular vote be THE VOTE!

Have states hold their primary elections in alphabetical order.

Even if the states held their primaries in alphabetical order, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas would have the new presidential candidates decided before California and Colorado even got to put in their two cents worth. By having all primaries on the same day, this problem would be eliminated.

One thing about the electoral college is that it does give rural states with low populations just a little bit of say. Without it, the populated areas have all of the control.

Keep the electoral college, but have all primaries the same day. This would eliminate a lot of nonsense, and give us more viable candidates. A candidate could get elected on merit instead of just because they have the most money, or because they are a highly regarded member of the "Good Old Boys Club."
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Soap...I just gotta axe ya.....who's gonna get yer vote? Johanns, or Kleeb?

As much as it gives me the watery runs to vote for a Democrat (I voted for Ben Nelson last time around, too), there is no way I can vote for Johanns. He never finished the job as commissioner in Lincoln to run for Mayor, never finished the job as Mayor to run for Governor, never finished the job as Governor to head up the USDA, and never finished THAT job to run for Senate. I've personally met Johanns, and the guy, to me, is a walking counterfeit 3 dollar bill.

I've met Kleeb twice now, and I have to admit I like what he has to say for the most part, and he seems incredibly well informed on bio-fuels and the strain ethanol is causing.

But, hell, I'd probably even vote for Old Whiner/Socialist before I'd vote for Johanns. :shock:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
kolanuraven said:
Get rid of all delegates....get rid of the electoral college.....let the popular vote be THE VOTE!

Have states hold their primary elections in alphabetical order.

Even if the states held their primaries in alphabetical order, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas would have the new presidential candidates decided before California and Colorado even got to put in their two cents worth. By having all primaries on the same day, this problem would be eliminated.

One thing about the electoral college is that it does give rural states with low populations just a little bit of say. Without it, the populated areas have all of the control.

Keep the electoral college, but have all primaries the same day. This would eliminate a lot of nonsense, and give us more viable candidates. A candidate could get elected on merit instead of just because they have the most money, or because they are a highly regarded member of the "Good Old Boys Club."

:agree:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Soapweed said:
kolanuraven said:
Get rid of all delegates....get rid of the electoral college.....let the popular vote be THE VOTE!

Have states hold their primary elections in alphabetical order.

Even if the states held their primaries in alphabetical order, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas would have the new presidential candidates decided before California and Colorado even got to put in their two cents worth. By having all primaries on the same day, this problem would be eliminated.

One thing about the electoral college is that it does give rural states with low populations just a little bit of say. Without it, the populated areas have all of the control.

Keep the electoral college, but have all primaries the same day. This would eliminate a lot of nonsense, and give us more viable candidates. A candidate could get elected on merit instead of just because they have the most money, or because they are a highly regarded member of the "Good Old Boys Club."

:agree:

Yep- and cut the campaign length (the time period they could use donated campaign money) to 6 months before the general election and 3 months before the nationwide primary....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I would say no TV or radio advertisements - the only mass media they could use would be the newspaper. My reasons;

1) Campaigns could be financed for a fraction of what they are now, thus, reducing the need to prostitute themselves.

2) Anybody who wants to educate themselves on the candadates would have access to information for less than a dollar.

3) Anybody who doesn't care won't have to put up with the ad bombardment.

4) Those of us who do care won't have to put up with the BS half-the-story ads that they all run that make us sick of the process and so glad when it's over so we can see an Arby's or Coors commercial.

5) All their promises and pledges would be in writing.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I would say no TV or radio advertisements - the only mass media they could use would be the newspaper. My reasons;

1) Campaigns could be financed for a fraction of what they are now, thus, reducing the need to prostitute themselves.

2) Anybody who wants to educate themselves on the candadates would have access to information for less than a dollar.

3) Anybody who doesn't care won't have to put up with the ad bombardment.

4) Those of us who do care won't have to put up with the BS half-the-story ads that they all run that make us sick of the process and so glad when it's over that an Arby's or Coors commercial is actually enjoyable.

5) All their promises and pledges would be in writing.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
kolanuraven said:
Get rid of all delegates....get rid of the electoral college.....let the popular vote be THE VOTE!

Have states hold their primary elections in alphabetical order.

Even if the states held their primaries in alphabetical order, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas would have the new presidential candidates decided before California and Colorado even got to put in their two cents worth. By having all primaries on the same day, this problem would be eliminated.

One thing about the electoral college is that it does give rural states with low populations just a little bit of say. Without it, the populated areas have all of the control.

Keep the electoral college, but have all primaries the same day. This would eliminate a lot of nonsense, and give us more viable candidates. A candidate could get elected on merit instead of just because they have the most money, or because they are a highly regarded member of the "Good Old Boys Club."

One thing that needs to be changed with respect to the electoral college is to distribute the electors on a percentage basis-not a winner take all. For instance in my state if East Tennesseans voted for candidate A to the tune of 30% of the total vote then Candidate A should get 30% of the electors/delegates. If Candidate B carried West and Middle TN with 70% of the vote then Candidate B should get 70% of the elector/delegates.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
get rid of the electoral college.....let the popular vote be THE VOTE!

.

Its not perfect but it is the best system we could have. If not for the electoral college, we would have people on the east and west coast deciding the way America went with people through out Middle of America being represented.

kolanuraven said:
Have states hold their primary elections in alphabetical order.

Sounds like a fair way of doing the Primaries! If you put your mind to it even you can have a good idea now and then :lol:
 

Cal

Well-known member
Hmmm....so would it be basically a two party system, or would the fringe parties get on the ballot as well?

And Sandhusker, I hear that newspaper circulations have been in decline, so maybe you should add the Internet to your list.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Cal said:
Hmmm....so would it be basically a two party system, or would the fringe parties get on the ballot as well?

And Sandhusker, I hear that newspaper circulations have been in decline, so maybe you should add the Internet to your list.

That'll work.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Soap...I just gotta axe ya.....who's gonna get yer vote? Johanns, or Kleeb?

As much as it gives me the watery runs to vote for a Democrat (I voted for Ben Nelson last time around, too), there is no way I can vote for Johanns. He never finished the job as commissioner in Lincoln to run for Mayor, never finished the job as Mayor to run for Governor, never finished the job as Governor to head up the USDA, and never finished THAT job to run for Senate. I've personally met Johanns, and the guy, to me, is a walking counterfeit 3 dollar bill.

I've met Kleeb twice now, and I have to admit I like what he has to say for the most part, and he seems incredibly well informed on bio-fuels and the strain ethanol is causing.

But, hell, I'd probably even vote for Old Whiner/Socialist before I'd vote for Johanns. :shock:

It's a perplexing dilema. I agree that Johanns has not done our state up too proud, but if Kleeb gets in, Nebraska will be represented by two Democrat senators. Basically, that is the way it has been the past two years anyway, because supposedly Republican Hagel was merely a Democrat in disguise. I have been leaning towards voting for Kleeb, but after attending the Cherry County Republican convention yesterday, I am more energized into voting for Johanns because he is a Republican. Yes, it has been pointed out to me that the vote should go for the person instead of the party, but I am also smart enough to realize that once these elected officials get to Washington, usually their loyalty falls right along the party lines. It is a dilema.

I did recently resign my membership to the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businesses), an organization I have belonged to for at least ten years. At the last election, they endorsed Ben Nelson (Democrat). By his winning the last election, the teeter-totter flopped over to the Democrats having the majority in the Senate. The Republicans are more user-friendly to the capitalistic free-enterprise system, so it rankled that the NFIB endorsed a Democrat.

Yes, I am narrow-minded but I was born that way. :wink: :)
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
A couple of years ago, there was an article in the Omaha WH on Nelson and Hagel. Nelson had a higher approval rating among Republicans than Hagel, and Hagel had a higher approval rating among Democrats than Nelson!

I've also read several places that Nelson isn't the party's favorite because they can't count on him to toe the party line. He votes with the Republican side about as much as he does the Democrat.

What we need to do is emasculate both parties so they have less power and pull. I don't think it makes sense for my reps. to be in the same bunch as reps. from California, Florida and New York simply because of a letter behind thier names. My guys should be in the same bunch as the reps. from South Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, etc.... because we share the same problems. We're united by geography and industry.
 

Latest posts

Top