Please keep this to the orignal question and not go where it will get this poofed. I have been thinking of this for a few years. Are you satified with our election prossess or do you think there is a better way? To me I think for national elections every primary should be on the same day with every votor being able to vote acceptable or UNacceptable and only canidates with a 75% acceptable vote be able to continue on to a next primary 2 months later if there are any canidates that qualify, if none then an entirely different slate of canidates will have to apear and continue on till every canidate gets that 75% acceptable and if in the last round more than one gets that then the one with the highest acceptable rate wins. Only difference with state issues they already all on same day. This would be basicaly the same for any of your local office holders. And for Vice president and president they would have to run independantly so both get the highest acceptible vote. As is we in the later voting states do not ever get to vote for our favorite canidate because the first states knock them out even if the later states would chose them if they had a chance. Please keep comments on the voting prossess only and off any canidates or partys and if you have any thoughts on making it more fair. I also think they should for every eligable voter mail them a ballot to mail back in instead of having to go to a polling station that may have to be open 10 hours a day paying 4 people to set there all day for only one qualified voter to vote in that station. I believe this would get rid of the bad canidates and save the country millions of dollars. If you like the curent prossess please say why and changes you would like please say them as well but keep only on the prossess of voting. I am trying to keep this off of politicks and only on the vote prossess. I do not know if Canada or the other countries use something simular or not.
- Thread starter Leroy
- Start date
I don't know about making it all that complicated,but this whole thing of nominating a candidate a year before the election sucks. By June we always find out it's the wrong candidate. We never used to decide before the conventions in about August. That was soon enough.
At this rate,why not just have the primary at the same time as the general election? It'll give the nominee 4 years to run. You might think that's a joke,but we're getting awful close to it.
At this rate,why not just have the primary at the same time as the general election? It'll give the nominee 4 years to run. You might think that's a joke,but we're getting awful close to it.
I think they need to dump the primaries. All that is a ploy so the parties vote isn't split. By what right are the parties saying this and this only is your choice for that party come election day? These elected officials are supposed to represent all of the voters, not thier party.
Rick
Rick
This might work on the local level but it would never be allowed by the behind-the-scenes, elitist, power-brockers who select and offer us sheeple the candidates they want us to select from. I do understand your reasoning, but I am afraid only real revolution of the violate kind (1776) can change what has and is happening in America now. But leave me, and millions of others, out of it as we have our recliners, and our beer, and we are waiting for the playoff games!! Let the good times roll, baby!!!!
(please read latter part as TIC sarcasm)
(please read latter part as TIC sarcasm)
I agree. A buddy at work was asking why the voter turnout was so low. I told him that the importance of helping to decide the future of this country pales in comparison to Dancing with the Stars, Jersey Shore, etc. For way too many people this choice between civic duty and self-indulgence is a no-brainer. We are so screwed...
As long as we as a people contribute to PAC's and political parties and campaign funds, the politicos will take and spend our money as freely as they do in Washington. That just gives them more money to freewheel with for a longer time. So what if they don't get elected- they will still have money to live on until the next campaign and the money starts pouring in again.
First election day needs to be either a Federal holiday where everyone is off work so they can both vote as well as watch their children who are out of school so it can be used as a votong station. Even better since everyone in the US of legasl age and who is eligible to vote has a SSN there is no reason that elections can't be done electronically from the comfort of your own home. The whole PIN number tied to an account thing had worked for banks for years to correctly identify individuals so why not for the election process. Given the proper programming this could be done in such a way that the voter's choices remained annonamous but at the same time the person voting would be be using a 'unique' code assigned to them consisting of their SSN and a PIN to insure that they voted only once. Then get rid of the electoral college. It was put in place at a time when instant communication, powered travel (ie planes, cars, etc) didn't exist, with the intent to allow the masses to vote as locally as possible and then for a small amount of individuals to actually do the travel, etc involved for the actual epection process itself. Granted that's a very simplified view but it captures the basic idea behind things. Nowdays there is no reason for doing things this way, and it has actually allowed several Presidents to be voted into office without recieving the popular vote. Given that this countries government is supposed to be driven by the will of the people, when something like this happens, it goes directly against the principles out founding fathers laid out for the way things should be.
Beyond that I agree that we need to have quality candidates running more so than politicians. So, to aid in that we need to set campaign spending limits to level the playing field a bit. The best candidate might not have 200 million to blow on TV adds, etc, etc but the way things are now the other guy can all but buy the election by getting his name out and overloading the public with his adds to the point that the best guys stuff gets lost in the shuffle. Ultimately though the best reform will be to get career politicians out of office and get in some people that care about more than lining their own pockets at the publics expense.
Beyond that I agree that we need to have quality candidates running more so than politicians. So, to aid in that we need to set campaign spending limits to level the playing field a bit. The best candidate might not have 200 million to blow on TV adds, etc, etc but the way things are now the other guy can all but buy the election by getting his name out and overloading the public with his adds to the point that the best guys stuff gets lost in the shuffle. Ultimately though the best reform will be to get career politicians out of office and get in some people that care about more than lining their own pockets at the publics expense.
I don't know the answer, but it sure isn't giving us any good choices this year, is it?
Perhaps the country is in a period of dividing into 2 sides, and both want things their way. Some want the govt to run everything, and some want old freedoms and liberties back. No compromise left. I'm not talking about the candidates, I'm talking about we the people.
--->Paul
Perhaps the country is in a period of dividing into 2 sides, and both want things their way. Some want the govt to run everything, and some want old freedoms and liberties back. No compromise left. I'm not talking about the candidates, I'm talking about we the people.
--->Paul
Leroy - I seriously doubt if you'd ever get a 75% vote on any candidate, especially if you have large groups like are running for the nnalert nomination in Iowa and NH. Not picking on the nnalert because it would be a large group of nnalert if a nnalert was now President. The way it is now, the guy with the most money wins, so why don't we just have each group throw all of their money (PAC money included) in a pile, have someone count it, and declare a winner.
My biggest gripe, as an Illinois resident and an independent voter, is that they make you declare a party affiliation in order to vote in the primary. If you're an independent voter, you're SOL. And in the primary election, there's almost always a local issue that I'd like to cast a vote on, but no, they won't let me vote without saying I'm a nnalert or a nnalert. I'm 62 years old and have voted in every general election, but never have voted in a primary.
I'd personally like to see a "None Of The Above" box on the ballot. I leave the voting booth feeling like I voted AGAINST someone, rather than having voting FOR someone.
Paul
My biggest gripe, as an Illinois resident and an independent voter, is that they make you declare a party affiliation in order to vote in the primary. If you're an independent voter, you're SOL. And in the primary election, there's almost always a local issue that I'd like to cast a vote on, but no, they won't let me vote without saying I'm a nnalert or a nnalert. I'm 62 years old and have voted in every general election, but never have voted in a primary.
I'd personally like to see a "None Of The Above" box on the ballot. I leave the voting booth feeling like I voted AGAINST someone, rather than having voting FOR someone.
Paul
Primary elections have nothing to do with constitutional voting procedures. Totally set up by the "two party system', which also has nothing to do with the constitution. Any party can choose its candidates any way it wants, or a candidate can run without belonging to any party. Just get the names on a petition. Personally I will never vote for another "Republicrat". Constitution party is the best I've seen.
It should be set up so that the guy that is elected prez ONLY gets to serve "1" 6 year term and that is it.....No reelection.
As far as the Primary.....That is a mess, it should be set up like you say, 1 year before the election with BOTH parties casting their votes for their "best" guy (or baboon) on the same day.
I hate politics, I hate dumocrats even more.
We need a real tea party in this country.
As far as the Primary.....That is a mess, it should be set up like you say, 1 year before the election with BOTH parties casting their votes for their "best" guy (or baboon) on the same day.
I hate politics, I hate dumocrats even more.
We need a real tea party in this country.
Im with paul, the real problem is the polarization of the electorate. We've really split into two camps with single issues driving people one way or the other. The political power brokers in both major parties are more concerned with reelection than governance so they tend to stake out extreme positions on all issues to keep the single issue people in their camp. Im convinced that neither party, in its entireity stands for what the majority of Americans want.
Personally, I dislike the current system, but like it better than any alternative I've seen.
Personally, I dislike the current system, but like it better than any alternative I've seen.
I believe that voter turnout is too low because of what you say, as long as the beer supply is good and the TV is running who cares....Real pathetic.
The only way for a clean slate with ALL the elephants and jackasses to be kicked out of office is to have 1 or more of the following events happen:
1. Real high inflation, gas, fuel, food etc. With shortages of Beer, Cigarettes and food.
2. The prez and congress allow Texas to be 100% taken over by the Mexicans.
3. A reenstatement of the draft for a bad war, like Vietnam only worse.
4. The government rules private property is no longer sacred and you have to now pay federal property tax. (copper jacketed lead would be flying if that happened)
The only way for a clean slate with ALL the elephants and jackasses to be kicked out of office is to have 1 or more of the following events happen:
1. Real high inflation, gas, fuel, food etc. With shortages of Beer, Cigarettes and food.
2. The prez and congress allow Texas to be 100% taken over by the Mexicans.
3. A reenstatement of the draft for a bad war, like Vietnam only worse.
4. The government rules private property is no longer sacred and you have to now pay federal property tax. (copper jacketed lead would be flying if that happened)
Hey Mike! You may have come up with something. Kind of a mix. We could put them on an island, like 'Survivor', kick most of them off the island, and then put them on an 'American idol' type of show, and phone in the votes to see who gets to be Pres. Could you imagine the Senate races?
Doubtful they'll buy into MY idea, but here it is....
Remove term limits. Let the good ones stay as long as they want. But. Have them brought up for a vote of confidence every few years. If any incumbent fails to be re-elected, put them in front of a firing squad.
Cuts down on pension cost, not to mention makes
'em take their job very seriously.
Remove term limits. Let the good ones stay as long as they want. But. Have them brought up for a vote of confidence every few years. If any incumbent fails to be re-elected, put them in front of a firing squad.
Cuts down on pension cost, not to mention makes
'em take their job very seriously.
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Get rid of the voter fraud, first. Require state ID for each and every voter. That would cut down on dead people voting!
tomtirediron
Member
EXACTLY! Saw a website yesterday that claimed several hundred ineligable felons voted in 2008
Minnesoata General election alone.
Minnesoata General election alone.
Glen SW Wi
Member
If the electorial college is eliminate there would be no need for the less populated states to vote. Ca,Ny and a few other states would always elect the president.
oliver power
Member
I'm done voting. Polititions's are not for the people. They are for themselves.
I don't think election irregularities really mean that much in the long run. Once the 'people's representative' gets in office, they no longer answer to the electorate anyway. They answer to the call of cash from lobbies and PACs. Our political process is based on institutionalized bribery.
Ultradog MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- Twin Cities
I would simply outlaw professional and college sports during election years.
If people watched as many hours of debates as they do watching their teams we would once again have an informed electorate.
If people watched as many hours of debates as they do watching their teams we would once again have an informed electorate.
Don't think you have to shoot the guys that don't get reelected, just make it if you LOOSE you don't get any pension or benefits. I am starting to like the parliamentary system of government, the ruling party proposes all the legislation, any time a piece of legislation fails so does the government, it is dissolved and elections are in six weeks, if no one "wins" the elections various parties can join together to form a coalition government. This means if your a small party that picked up a few seats and your few seats could give a bigger parties the majority you get a say and have some power if the big party drifts to far from your agreement you vote against them and sink their government, that way the big parties might have to behave. It also makes election season a lot shorter
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
Here in South Dakota we HAVE to show our drivers licsense for an ID. Doesn't everyone already have to show some form of ID? One of the people on the election board was a classmate of mine that I have known my entire life, and I still have to get "carded". Another one of the election board ladies even "carded" her husband!
Anonymous-0
Well-known Member
state house, or senate?
Ed the wine farmer
Member
I would like to vote for None Of The Above, if that is my choice. What would happen if None Of The Above won? Ed
huntingreen2day2
Member
I agree there is no way we can get rid of the electoral college system. For one it makes the candidates visit all the states but the BIGGEST reason is it allows the people in the less populated areas have a say in the voting process. Do you want your president elected from the states of CA,IL,NY every election?
Thanks for answering. Now remember that this on a smaller scale could be your church board with 2 or 3 running and you think none are what you want to run your church but without acceptable or unacceptable you have to vote for somebody you do not think is right for the job, no way around that.
Exactly my point. The larger the population the larger the number of votes they get. So much so that if every one of the 4 million residents total of several the states voted for A, he still wouldn't win because of the 5 million in CA that decided to vote, 3 million of them voted for B and 2 for A. In other words A actually got 4 million popular votes between several states and 2 more in CA alone. However because of the small populations those states only had say 5 electoral votes total between them. California on the other hand has say 8 million people total (regardless of how many voted) so they get 10 votes.
So, even though only 5 million people out of say 10 million in CA voted for candidate B he still gets all 10 votes and wins. This in spite of the fact that candidate A actually got twice as many popular votes (6 million) as candidate B who only got 3 million total but ultimately got twice as many electoral votes which allowed him to win.
Does it make sense now???????? Doesn't seem fair given that the 'people' are supposed to rule the government and the 'people' spoke but were over ruled by the political process they are supposed to control.
Funny thing though about the whole process. Regardless of how the popular vote goes the electoral votes are not guaranteed to follow. Throuhout history is is customary to vote for the man that wins the popular election in the state but the person doing the voting can still vote for the other candidate if he so chooses.
So, even though only 5 million people out of say 10 million in CA voted for candidate B he still gets all 10 votes and wins. This in spite of the fact that candidate A actually got twice as many popular votes (6 million) as candidate B who only got 3 million total but ultimately got twice as many electoral votes which allowed him to win.
Does it make sense now???????? Doesn't seem fair given that the 'people' are supposed to rule the government and the 'people' spoke but were over ruled by the political process they are supposed to control.
Funny thing though about the whole process. Regardless of how the popular vote goes the electoral votes are not guaranteed to follow. Throuhout history is is customary to vote for the man that wins the popular election in the state but the person doing the voting can still vote for the other candidate if he so chooses.
Mark - IN.
Well-known Member
I used to be a resident of Illinois, and they have a law that I think most residents are not even aware of.
In Illinois, during a general election, if a voter doesn't vote for the top election on the ballot, the entire ballot is tossed out.
An example of what I mean, the Presidential and Gubernatorial elections are off cycle. Presidential election, 2008, 2012, 2016, etc. Governor 2006, 2010, 2014, etc. So when the Presidential election occurs, that is the top election on the ballot. When its the Gubernatorial election, the governor is the top election on the ballot.
What happened to me occured when a guy was running for governor, now in prison after being the governor, that I could not vote for because the corruption on that guy was rolling out on him before he was first elected. And I couldn't vote for the other guy, because his values and mine were at odds. So, I didn't vote for governor, and went to the next highest category, which I think was Secretary of State, and began voting down the ballot there. That night on the 10PM news, they told who won the governor's race, and its a fella now in prison...BUT during the report, the noted that fewer votes were cast for governor than the rest of the races on the ballot, one of them being myself, and then they pointed out the state law that said if a voter skips the top race on the ballot (president or governor depending on the cycle), the ballot gets tossed out (trashed) and vote disqualified.
My ballot got tossed because I couldn't vote for a guy now in prison, and a guy I totally disagreed with, but voted in all other categories. Is that correct? Its the law in Illinois. Is it the law here at home in Indiana? Never got the Secretary of State to say yes or no, so to be safe, I vote ALL categories, even if I have to write in Mickey Mouse for top billing.
Mark
In Illinois, during a general election, if a voter doesn't vote for the top election on the ballot, the entire ballot is tossed out.
An example of what I mean, the Presidential and Gubernatorial elections are off cycle. Presidential election, 2008, 2012, 2016, etc. Governor 2006, 2010, 2014, etc. So when the Presidential election occurs, that is the top election on the ballot. When its the Gubernatorial election, the governor is the top election on the ballot.
What happened to me occured when a guy was running for governor, now in prison after being the governor, that I could not vote for because the corruption on that guy was rolling out on him before he was first elected. And I couldn't vote for the other guy, because his values and mine were at odds. So, I didn't vote for governor, and went to the next highest category, which I think was Secretary of State, and began voting down the ballot there. That night on the 10PM news, they told who won the governor's race, and its a fella now in prison...BUT during the report, the noted that fewer votes were cast for governor than the rest of the races on the ballot, one of them being myself, and then they pointed out the state law that said if a voter skips the top race on the ballot (president or governor depending on the cycle), the ballot gets tossed out (trashed) and vote disqualified.
My ballot got tossed because I couldn't vote for a guy now in prison, and a guy I totally disagreed with, but voted in all other categories. Is that correct? Its the law in Illinois. Is it the law here at home in Indiana? Never got the Secretary of State to say yes or no, so to be safe, I vote ALL categories, even if I have to write in Mickey Mouse for top billing.
Mark
I think Abe Lincoln said, "The people in America generally have the governent they deserve" Use people power. Vote the scumballs out of office then they can go work as consultants for ten times the salary. Then we can have a brand new bunch of self-serving disfunctional scumballs. Just a thought.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy