Official 2012 Presidental Election Discussion

Clint Eastwood makes me uncomfortable. And chairs uncomfortable.

This. I can understand frustration with Obama, but Romney is NOT the answer.

SIMPSONS DID IT!!

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
- Winston Churchill

It's time to get real. Democracy alone is not perfect. A representative democracy, which a caucus system institutes (and both Great Britain and the United States utilize), works well.



Yes, amendments to the Constitution are fine. I've never argued against them. It's when people disregard the Constitution that I have a problem.

Even the 18th Amendment (Prohibition of Alcohol) went through the amendment process. It was later repealed with the 21st Amendment.

While prohibition, in my opinion, was an absurd concept; at least it went through the correct process. Nowadays, our "leaders" just completely disregard that process and completely abandon the concept of checks and balances in their powergrabs.



I'd love for that to be true, but unfortunately it's not. We still vote on things like "gay marriage," which in my opinion should not even be up for discussion. Giving one group one set of privileges and a different group a different set if privileges, is completely ridiculous.



The Presidency is electable, but as we saw in 2004, it is not a pure democratic system. In fact, even if you win the popular vote, as Gore did in '04, that does not guarantee that you will be the President.



Agreed. I'm fine with the Amendment process. But that's not what we're discussing here.



Yes, absolutely. I do my best to educate people on politics.

But given how stupid the average person is, we're not anywhere near the point of removing a Constitutional Republic in favor of a democracy.

Sorry, I realize in re-reading what I said that the way I phrased that sentence made it seem like you have caucuses, which obviously I know that you don't. What I meant is that both the US and Great Britain use representative democracies, which I think we're both happy with.



Well look, it's all about what you're advocating for.

To me, I believe that your well-informed voter should have more say in what happens than a person who doesn't have any idea what he or she is talking about and simply votes "D" or "R," or for the person with the best name or the person with the best hair.

When you advocate to get rid of the caucus system, you are saying that you want to get rid of ANY CHANCE that a non-mainstream candidate will win a nomination.

What you will see in the coming elections is that states like California, Texas and New York will follow in the footsteps of what Florida did in 2012 by moving their primary up to an earlier date. They will take a one-cycle hit to their delegate numbers as Florida did this year, but in order to get the Presidential candidates to actually campaign in their state, they will need to be moved forward.

In other words, a new "Super Tuesday" will essentially be created, with just about every major primary on the same day (or close to it). It is INCREDIBLY expensive to compete in those, which is why most candidates drop out well in advance of Super Tuesday as it is now.

If "Super Tuesday" included the larger states and was earlier in the process, as most experts are suggesting it will be soon given the new RNC rules, candidates like Rick Santorum who gained momentum in donations after winning a few states early, will be buried because they won't have accumulated enough money to compete in the giant Super Tuesday yet.

Simply put, if this process was in place for this year's nomination process within the Republican party, Mitt Romney would have been declared the nominee by mid-March.

Granted, he ended up winning anyway, but we at least got to see him run a real campaign against guys like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.

In the system you're advocating for, Romney would have completely dominated due to his ability to overspend and win the first few states, thus creating momentum and crushing the other candidates' campaigns.

Now the "establishment" of the party might say that this is a good thing as it gets a nominee earlier in the process, but my opinion is that it takes out the entire reason that we have campaign seasons -- to pick the BEST candidate -- not just the one who has the most banker money behind him (or her).



It's not better than any system because it leaves open the possibility that the minority is disregarded. It should not be that way. Two wolves and a sheep should not be deciding what's for dinner.

This is why, in my opinion, a representative democracy is the best thing. Each person as an individual gets a say, but in the end, they elect representatives who will be (or at least we hope) more informed on the subject in order to come to the best possible conclusion.



Absolutely.



I believe that "marriage" shouldn't be a government issue. It's a religious issue at its core and the government should be out of it entirely.

The government's sole job in "marriage" should be to enforce contracts between people, not to decide which people are legally allowed to enter into a contract based on their race, gender, nationality or sexuality.

As for abortion, that is probably the most divisive issue in America. It's tough because I think both sides have their points. Then again, I think both sides of the argument are full of people who are completely inconsistent and full of shit.



I don't agree. The US Constitution was written in a way that would make amendments difficult in order to, again, stop the majority from inflicting its control on the minority.



Ron Paul was for gay marriage before Barack Obama was. Just sayin.



The electoral college is interesting and arguably outdated, but it was really there in order to stop one state from having too much control.



It's a step in the wrong direction if you want an actual candidate and not just the guy who's willing to kiss the most ass on Wall Street.

So you want money to buy elections. That's fine. Your call.

And it's not "manipulating the system" for 's sake. The "system" has been there for years and it's how numerous candidates got their nominations, including our current President.

Read the above.

The system you're advocating would eliminate Santorum.

Santorum won primaries because they were spaced out. They won't be going forward. You watch.

Ron Paul is going to be on Leno tonight and supposedly making a big announcement. An endorsement for Gary Johnson perhaps? Less likely, a Johnson/Paul ticket?