Half of Americans think presidential nominating system 'rigged' - poll

[Independent voter]

Bernie supporters and Trump supporters would say the nominating system is 'rigged'. And in some ways it is. The 'super delegate' thing is a rule put in place to prevent someone like Bernie from becoming a candidate for example.

I can't remember the candidates name, but he was a socialist and he won the Democrat nomination, he lost horribly in the general election so Democrats said no more, and implemented the super delegate rule to prevent such things from happening again.

Also in a nation of immigrants, immigrants tend to come from countries where they don't trust the government, these people believe everything about the government is 'rigged'.

Much more at link

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KCN0XO0ZR?il=0

More than half of American voters believe that the system U.S. political parties use to pick their candidates for the White House is "rigged" and more than two-thirds want to see the process changed, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The results echo complaints from Republican front-runner Donald Trump and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders that the system is stacked against them in favor of candidates with close ties to their parties – a critique that has triggered a nationwide debate over whether the process is fair.

The United States is one of just a handful of countries that gives regular voters any say in who should make it onto the presidential ballot. But the state-by-state system of primaries, caucuses and conventions is complex. The contests historically were always party events, and while the popular vote has grown in influence since the mid-20th century, the parties still have considerable sway.

[Deleted]

The American political system is very strange, and obviously undemocratic

Money, influence and party politics matter, votes do not

[SodiumChloride]

Of course it's "rigged". The primaries are just surveys, nothing more.

Maybe you guys should just dump the POTUS election and just have congress and the senate work it out. That's how it works in other democracies, e.g. Parliamentary democracies, anyway.

[Forogil]

If course it's "rigged". The primaries are just surveys, nothing more.

Maybe you guys should just dump the POTUS election and just have congress and the senate work it out. That's how it works in you democracies, e.g. Parliamentary democracies, anyway.

Or just let the parties decide on candidates without primaries - as is done in some other countries with presidents.

However, that is unlikely to happen, since if one side skips primarie there will be more focus on the other party candidates.

[Skroe]

If course it's "rigged". The primaries are just surveys, nothing more.

Maybe you guys should just dump the POTUS election and just have congress and the senate work it out. That's how it works in you democracies, e.g. Parliamentary democracies, anyway.

Be design it is supposed to be. The current arrangement emerged out of the rise of the two party system, and the subsequent rise of joint President-Vice President tickets.

The way it is supposed to work, technically speaking is that through state-based votes by electors of many(lets say 10) non-party Presidential nominees, none would get a Majority and the top 3 would go to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote. The winner becomes President, the runner up Vice-President. 1800 and 1824 were decided like this.

Still, I greatly prefer our Presidential system to a Parliamentary system any day of the week. It's proven it's ability to take dramatic action when needed to on countless occasions, in contrast to more ponderous parliamentary systems.

[SodiumChloride]

Still, I greatly prefer our Presidential system to a Parliamentary system any day of the week. It's proven it's ability to take dramatic action when needed to on countless occasions, in contrast to more ponderous parliamentary systems.

Why would a parliamentary system be unable to take "dramatic action"?

[Stacyrect]

The electoral college is a prime example of voter fraud. It is the link in this country that makes everything non democratic, overly more so with super delegates. How could Bernie win a state and not get the electoral vote? You could make the same arguments for Cruz and Trump. When you supersede the vote of the people, democracy is a lie. The people no longer matter in an event where their overwhelming voice is superseded by another.

[Very Tired]

On top of the electoral college system? Maybe the people saying their votes don't matter are the smarter ones.

[starlord]

It was set up to be rigged, the only people crying about it now are the vastly uneducated who have only now just realized that they have been led around by the nose for centuries.

[Deleted]

Be design it is supposed to be.

yes as you say, that's the way its designed.

Still, I greatly prefer our Presidential system to a Parliamentary system any day of the week. It's proven it's ability to take dramatic action when needed to on countless occasions, in contrast to more ponderous parliamentary systems.

Strictly speaking we are now are comparing and contrasting different things.
You can have a parlimentary system and a presidential one at the same time for one.
But more importantly, while your presidential system permits 'dramatic action' - Your election system for said position is still garbage.

[Deleted]

and other 49% who dosen t think its riged are brain ded ?the 1% have voted no ofc

[Draco-Onis]

Of course it's rigged and it's by design the founding founders were deathly afraid of giving power to the people. It's only gotten worse with primaries, citizens united, gerrymandering and voter ID laws.

[Skroe]

yes as you say, that's the way its designed.

Strictly speaking we are now are comparing and contrasting different things.
You can have a parlimentary system and a presidential one at the same time for one.
But more importantly, while your presidential system permits 'dramatic action' - Your election system for said position is still garbage.

Hey I'm all for a national popular vote and a national primary rather than this stupid slow-drip state by state nonsense. I sincerely doubt there is any politician that actually likes retail politics in Iowa. Except maybe Bill Clinton.

But in the end, we've been here before, and Americans have to actually want it. Part of democracy is responsibility. And every time the electoral college or something else incites people, they have energy about it for all of four months then they forget about it.

Like this "Superdelegate" stuff? Not a damn thing will change for the Democrats. And the Republicans may reform themselves to look more like the Democratic nominating process. The folks swearing to "Change the system" now will be burned out by December.

The electoral college is the same thing. If it's important enough to Americans, they need to take responsibility and actually change it. Otherwise we really do get what we pay for.

[Ripster42]

yes as you say, that's the way its designed.

Strictly speaking we are now are comparing and contrasting different things.
You can have a parlimentary system and a presidential one at the same time for one.
But more importantly, while your presidential system permits 'dramatic action' - Your election system for said position is still garbage.

I'd prefer not to give any more power to our analogous parliament body, the legislative branch. Prez vetos, legislature holds no confidence vote... no thanks.

[Ghostpanther]

Depends on the states. Some like Ohio, do it right. Winner takes all delegates. I would say it is rigged some to the point the political party has more control over who the nominee is no matter who the people in those states which are not winner take all vote for. But so is the electoral college for the general election. Have always felt that was dumb. The candidate who gets the most votes across the nation should win.

[Macaquerie]

Not to sound too much like an authoritarian despot, but the current election is a good demonstration of why giving all the power to the masses isn't really the best idea. I mean, if we completely "un-rigged" the system now we'd probably end up with President Kanye or something equally stupid.

[Ghostpanther]

Not to sound too much like an authoritarian despot, but the current election is a good demonstration of why giving all the power to the masses isn't really the best idea. I mean, if we completely "un-rigged" the system now we'd probably end up with President Kanye or something equally stupid.

So you are not for democracy? A political party, if it is a one which stands for democracy, should respect the people they represent and honor their votes.

[Macaquerie]

So you are not for democracy? A political party, if it is a one which stands for democracy, should respect the people they represent and honor their votes.

Well it depends on what you mean by democracy. If policy X is supported by a majority nationwide, then should it also be forced on all the people who didn't vote for it? Or should people living in area A where policy Y has a majority lobby for greater autonomy so that they can implement their preferred course of action rather than being controlled by the votes of outsiders? What happens with policies that are only effective if applied universally, should these be left to unwilling local governments to implement piecemeal? What about policies that require a long term committment to implement properly, should people just be allowed to change their minds whenever they want or should they be compelled to stick with their original decision? The will of the people means a lot of different things in many different contexts, and since no one is ever willing to put a universal set of principles above their own partisan interests, there are always going to be conflicts.

[Grimbold21]

So you are not for democracy? A political party, if it is a one which stands for democracy, should respect the people they represent and honor their votes.

It's a double edged sword. We like to stand here and defend the right of people to vote, but we're equally prepared to state that giving power to the masses is dangerous, because, we all know it, a great part of that collective is stupid.

[Ghostpanther]

Well it depends on what you mean by democracy. If policy X is supported by a majority nationwide, then should it also be forced on all the people who didn't vote for it? Or should people living in area A where policy Y has a majority lobby for greater autonomy so that they can implement their preferred course of action rather than being controlled by the votes of outsiders? What happens with policies that are only effective if applied universally, should these be left to unwilling local governments to implement piecemeal? What about policies that require a long term committment to implement properly, should people just be allowed to change their minds whenever they want or should they be compelled to stick with their original decision? The will of the people means a lot of different things in many different contexts, and since no one is ever willing to put a universal set of principles above their own partisan interests, there are always going to be conflicts.

This is already happening. And I do believe in states rights also and local communities setting up their own laws to a extent. But there has to be some federal laws in place or you cannot exist as a cohesive nation.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a double edged sword. We like to stand here and defend the right of people to vote, but we're equally prepared to state that giving power to the masses is dangerous, because, we all know it, a great part of that collective is stupid.

I do not know that. Besides, as a fair political system such as a real democracy, you can not take that stance and still call your system a democracy. :P What it would be in essence is a "elite" society.