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

[MCMLXXXII]

I think the Electoral College system doesn't make it very transparent. Just make the one with the majority of votes President.

[melodramocracy]

Yes, it's rigged. Which sort of makes me wonder why people get so emotionally invested in such things when election season comes around. I guess the belief that you make a difference is a strong motivator, even if it's not actually true.

[SodiumChloride]

Um, yes. Why did you quote me?

Why would I not quote you when I'm replying to you?

[Slant]

Why would I not quote you when I'm replying to you?

Your response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. That's why I asked.

[SodiumChloride]

Your response had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. That's why I asked.

You said parliamentary systems are slower ... but with the US's congress, it's just as slow. I really don't see how it's faster.

[Slant]

You said parliamentary systems are slower ... but with the US's congress, it's just as slow. I really don't see how it's faster.

I never said that.

[slime]

I totally believed this, until Obama.

[Shadowferal]

The real problem is the system in place itself, and not so much the money.

The impact of the money is surprisingly next to non existent so far. It is still a perversion to have this out of control situation. One doesn't even wanna start to think about how much good could be done with all that money wasted on the elections..

Almost a billion dollars to get elected president...constant fundraising for three years. (The fact that one of the "outsiders" is funding much of his own campaign from his own pockets should fairly scream the problem loud and proud.)

It takes tens of thousands of dollars per day just for a congressman to keep his/her seat, and that money isn't coming from me or you. It's coming from the lobbyists in DC, and every one of them has their checkbooks out, and not many of them has the interests of Joe Average American at heart.

So to think that money isn't the problem is very naïve to me.

[PACOX]

People just don't understand how it works.

The GOP and Democratic Party are private entities free to pick their candidate as the see fit. If you're a member of on of those parties then
endorse the selection process or petition your states chapter of the party to change. Also remember that these two parties favor voting at the state level not the popular vote, something people also get confused about.

Other parties have different systems. Some don't hold votes at all. Some are parties within parties. A lot of the beef people have with the primary systems is because they aren't involved in the their parties and only show up on election day but not when the party is discussing the rules of the party.

[SodiumChloride]

I never said that.

Then what the heck were you replying about in #40? O_o

[Fugus]

People just don't understand how it works.

The GOP and Democratic Party are private entities free to pick their candidate as the see fit. If you're a member of on of those parties then
endorse the selection process or petition your states chapter of the party to change. Also remember that these two parties favor voting at the state level not the popular vote, something people also get confused about.

Other parties have different systems. Some don't hold votes at all. Some are parties within parties. A lot of the beef people have with the primary systems is because they aren't involved in the their parties and only show up on election day but not when the party is discussing the rules of the party.

Doesn't that excuse go completely out the window the moment they started getting special treatment when it came to elections or when they turned into the defacto gatekeepers for our presidential elections?

Sorry, but so long as they are getting special treatment or given that much direct control over the elections, they kinda lose those privileges in much the same way a company ends up much more controlled when they are a monopoly versus when they are in a market with heavy competition.

Once the way elections are done are completely redid from the ground up in ways that prevent them so much control, you may have a point. But till then, the rhetoric doesn't match the reality in just how much control they have.

[PACOX]

Doesn't that excuse go completely out the window the moment they started getting special treatment when it came to elections or when they turned into the defacto gatekeepers for our presidential elections?

Sorry, but so long as they are getting special treatment or given that much direct control over the elections, they kinda lose those privileges in much the same way a company ends up much more controlled when they are a monopoly versus when they are in a market with heavy competition.

Once the way elections are done are completely redid from the ground up in ways that prevent them so much control, you may have a point. But till then, the rhetoric doesn't match the reality in just how much control they have.

They can't have control over the elections if people stop joining the two parties. They also don't get special treatment. Much of the "special treatment" is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors because Joe Schmoe can't be bothered to actually get involved with political process. Sanders talks about this and yet his supporters don't really pay any attention, even Trump does it too. Yet people will continue to affiliate themselves with a particular party, ignore the proceedings of the party, and then bitch about their own party.

The primaries are as American as you can get, perhaps people don't like looking into the mirror?

Do we want the Feds dictating how a party can nominate a candidate?

[Fugus]

They can't have control over the elections if people stop joining the two parties. They also don't get special treatment. Much of the "special treatment" is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors because Joe Schmoe can't be bothered to actually get involved with political process. Sanders talks about this and yet his supporters don't really pay any attention, even Trump does it too. Yet people will continue to affiliate themselves with a particular party, ignore the proceedings of the party, and then bitch about their own party.

The primaries are as American as you can get, perhaps people don't like looking into the mirror?

Do we want the Feds dictating how a party can nominate a candidate?

The whole way the system is currently designed is to funnel the people into one of two groups. So even if they stopped joining them, then another separate group would spring up and take on the same roll and end up getting the same priviledge after it ate one of the other groups and that is assuming one of the other 2 groups didn't just adapt and eat it first if not make sure it never got enough traction to get off the ground to begin with.

I know Sanders even talked about it but even him and Trump had to join one of the big 2 to even get heard in this election. Otherwise they wouldn't even been seen as a joke candidate.

In order for them not to have control over our elections, it requires more than just people to stop joining them, it requires the entire system to be rebuilt from the ground up to allow for more than just 2 groups to survive and become viable options including the ability for independents to actually run based on their merits and stand a chance.

[hakujinbakasama]

This just in, populations percentages are usually stupid.

[Sunseeker]

It's not rigged in the same sense that say, Turkey's "democracy" is. But it is rigged to ensure that whomever the people get to "vote" for doesn't actually represent their interests.