US Presidential Primaries, 2008

  • News
  • Thread starter Gokul43201
  • Start date
In summary, the Iowa Caucus is going to be a close race, with Huckabee and Paul fighting for fourth place.

Who will be the eventual nominee from each party?


  • Total voters
    68
  • Poll closed .
  • #1,086
jimmysnyder said:
Unless, of course, you start at the top, not the bottom.
Reminds me of the Enid Blyton character, Noddy, who wanted to build the roof of his house before the walls in case it rained :biggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #1,087
I note that the Libertarian party runs a great many candidates at all levels of government and some of them are in office. That's bottom up. Nader on the other hand seems to be running without party affiliation this time 'round. That's top down. Neither approach satisfies turbo. Your suggestion that we start with independents seems unusual to me, perhaps that's outside in. I doubt though that pronouncements on how it must be done are really what's wanted. When successful parties come into existence, we can look at how they did it. The Republican party ran a Presidential candidate two years after its first meeting, and won the Presidency (Lincoln) four years after that. The Whig party ran a successful candidate (Harrison) seven years after it was formed.
 
  • #1,088
I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.
 
  • #1,089
Art said:
I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.
Like I said, Nader seems to be running without party affiliation. Turbo is not moved.
 
  • #1,090
jimmysnyder said:
Like I said, Nader seems to be running without party affiliation. Turbo is not moved.
And like I said fill congress with independents and then worry about the president's office.

It is hard to see how an independent president could be effective with a party oriented congress.
 
  • #1,091
Art said:
And like I said fill congress with independents and then worry about the president's office.

It is hard to see how an independent president could be effective with a party oriented congress.
How about it turbo, will you vote for independents for congers?
 
  • #1,092
Art said:
I thought the question was more one of how to move away from party politics, not just adding to the parties or substituting a new one for an existing one.
Actually, this is a rather enthusiastic reading of turbo's complaint. He decries the 2-party system. That could be taken to mean he wants a 0 party system, as you have taken. But it could also mean he wants a 1-party system, (I rather doubt that) or a 3 or more party system as I take him to mean.
 
  • #1,093
jimmysnyder said:
I note that the Libertarian party runs a great many candidates at all levels of government and some of them are in office. That's bottom up.
Not only should a party build from the bottom up, but they should have a controlled growth. For several years, the Libertarian Party engaged in an undisciplined 'body count' approach. Anyone could be a Libertarian candidate as long as they ran for an office that didn't already have a Libertarian candidate running. They tended to attract a lot of flakes who's only qualification was having a lot of time on their hands.

The important thing was having a lot of candidates running for office gave the appearance of a vigorous party. They needed to do a little screening, which is hard to do with a small staff and a lot of candidates.

Quality is more important than quantity when it comes to building a party's reputation.

A Libertarian candidate (John Hospers) won his party's only electoral vote for President only a year after formation of the Libertarian Party, but was eclipsed by the Reform Party just 20 years later (Hospers VP candidate, Theodora Nathan, is still the only female to earn an electoral vote).

I have no explanation for the collapse of the Reform Party other than Pat Buchanon is a really, really horrible candidate. Come to think of it, the worst problems of the Republican Party came after Pat Buchanon left the Reform Party and rejoined the Republican Party.
 
  • #1,094
BobG said:
Not only should a party build from the bottom up.
Why should a party build from the bottom up?
 
  • #1,095
jimmysnyder said:
Actually, this is a rather enthusiastic reading of turbo's complaint. He decries the 2-party system. That could be taken to mean he wants a 0 party system, as you have taken. But it could also mean he wants a 1-party system, (I rather doubt that) or a 3 or more party system as I take him to mean.
Turbo can interpret for himself but I took my understanding from this
The US has to get beyond a 2-party system that can be gamed and twisted by the party heavies.[
I don't think having a 1 or 3 party system would meet his stated desire.

A lot of constitutionalists would like to see party politics done away with and elected members to vote according to their conscience which I believe was the original intention of the authors of the US constitution
 
  • #1,096
Art said:
Turbo can interpret for himself but I took my understanding from this I don't think having a 1 or 3 party system would meet his stated desire.

A lot of constitutionalists would like to see party politics done away with and elected members to vote according to their conscience which I believe was the original intention of the authors of the US constitution

Or at least remove party designations from ballots. Restricting membership in a political party would be unconstitutional, but there's no more right to putting party designation on a ballot than there is to putting your income on a ballot.

Voters wouldn't have to know any more about their candidates than they do now, but at least the completely uninformed votes would be spread out more randomly.
 
  • #1,097
We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.

This two-party system is ridiculous - it poses a false dichotomy that appeals mostly to the uninformed. As an independent, I vote for the candidates that I prefer, regardless of party affiliation. This election cycle, the false dichotomy is going to hurt some Republicans because many people just want to get the Bush-Cheney years behind us, and they blame the party for a lot of the trouble. That's too bad, because there are some decent Republican candidates that may get booted just because their districts are fed up with the administration.
 
  • #1,098
turbo-1 said:
We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.
In a parliamentary form, how do local politicians fare when the populace is fed up with the PM?
 
  • #1,099
turbo-1 said:
We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions. ...
How do you respond to the various criticisms of the parliamentary system?
 
  • #1,100
mheslep said:
How do you respond to the various criticisms of the parliamentary system?
Do you want me to guess what "various criticisms" you are referring to or would you like to clarify? There are faults and weaknesses with all types of government - it's the nature of the beast.
 
  • #1,101
turbo-1 said:
Do you want me to guess what "various criticisms" you are referring to or would you like to clarify? There are faults and weaknesses with all types of government - it's the nature of the beast.
I was curious as whether you had considered the pros and cons of your proposal.
 
  • #1,102
turbo-1 said:
We would be better served by a parliamentary form of government, in which party power is diffuse and distributed, and the parties would have to form coalitions.

That would have more to do with a proportional representation form of election than with parliamentarism as such, no? I.e., it's the winner-take-all form of our elections that reinforces the two-party system, not the relationship between the executive and legislature (which is what distinguishes a parliamentary republic from a presidential republic). Proportional representation tends to coincide with parliamentarism in Continential Europe, but there are plenty of parliamentary republics with winner-take-all elections, and they tend to produce distributions of partisan power that are similar to the United States.

For more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law" [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,103
quadraphonics said:
That would have more to do with a proportional representation form of election than with parliamentarism as such, no? I.e., it's the winner-take-all form of our elections that reinforces the two-party system, not the relationship between the executive and legislature (which is what distinguishes a parliamentary republic from a presidential republic). Proportional representation tends to coincide with parliamentarism in Continential Europe, but there are plenty of parliamentary republics with winner-take-all elections, and they tend to produce distributions of partisan power that are similar to the United States.

For more info see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law" [Broken].
It could be arranged that way. I would prefer to see a large number of parties, in which our candidates for representative, etc would contend in a general election, with the the two candidates with the most votes would have a run-off for a final selection to represent their district. When the elected officials convene they would have to form alliances with the officials of other parties and elect a prime minister. There could still be a bicameral legislative body, but the dilution of party power would mean that no one party could cram legislation down the throats of the others. I dislike the winner-take-all system. In the Republican Party this year, it mooted the campaigns of some candidates who might have emerged as quite superior to McCain, and given us a better choice in the general election.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,104
But how are you going to get the kind of change you want if you vote for Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from winning, or vice versa?
 
  • #1,105
jimmysnyder said:
But how are you going to get the kind of change you want if you vote for Republicans in order to prevent Democrats from winning, or vice versa?
There has to be a grass-roots movement for reforms that take some of the "600lb gorilla" influence away from the major parties to allow Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and other smaller parties to consolidate and grow. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished apart from supplying public financing for all national elections and banning contributions from all other sources. As for the costs of running campaigns, TV stations, radio stations, etc have to be licensed and they are for the most part getting public bandwidth dirt-cheap, and should be expected to air debates free of charge.
 
  • #1,106
My pet proposal for disempowering the two-party system is instant-runoff voting. Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates. This removes much of the incentive that the winner-take-all system provides for voters to cast in their lot with a big party (i.e., "don't throw your vote away."). It's also the kind of thing that's relatively straightforward to pitch and implement on the local level.

I don't think there's any need to mess with the executive structure of the overall republic in favor of parliamentarism, or at least any time soon. It could be that adjustments to the relationship between the executive and legislature are appropriate for a polity with less power concentrated in two parties, but we're a long way from that point, and in the meantime it's winner-take-all voting that is the main sustainer of the two-party system.
 
  • #1,107
quadraphonics said:
My pet proposal for disempowering the two-party system is instant-runoff voting. Rather than casting a vote for a single candidate, each voter would rank the candidates. Then, to decide the winner, you first check if any candidate received a majority of first-choice votes. If not, you eliminate the least-popular candidate and distribute his votes to their second-choice candidates, repeating this process until someone has a majority of non-eliminated candidates.
I like that!
 
  • #1,108
Good idea, but people are too stupid to accept it. They won't understand how it works, get frustrated, and just not vote or probably never even become used because of that very reason.
 
  • #1,109
What's hard to understand? Give a list of candidates, and have people pick from favorite to least favorite. If they want to cast a vote for only one candidate, so be it.
 
  • #1,110
turbo-1 said:
What's hard to understand? Give a list of candidates, and have people pick from favorite to least favorite. If they want to cast a vote for only one candidate, so be it.
We already do exactly that here in Ireland but we still end up with a party system, albeit 3 parties rather than 2 with just a handful of independents.
 
  • #1,111
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&scoreSort=current_congress [Broken]

Ranking of Senators from most to least "progressive": play around with different areas of legislation to zoom in on fields of interest.

"Lifetime" Scores - going back until 1991 (all issues):

#1. Sheldon Whitehouse
#20. Hillary Clinton
#25. Barack Obama
#60. John McCain
#100. Jim DeMintVotes cast during 2007-2008 (all issues):

#1. Frank Lautenberg
#29. Hillary Clinton
#41. Barack Obama
#82. John McCain
#100. Jim DeMint

Note: Clinton and Obama appear to have swung towards the center lately, while McCain has swung a lot to the Right.

PS: Can we have the former McCain back...please?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,112
turbo-1 said:
There has to be a grass-roots movement for reforms that take some of the "600lb gorilla" influence away from the major parties to allow Libertarians, Greens, Independents, and other smaller parties to consolidate and grow. I'm not sure how that can be accomplished apart from supplying public financing for all national elections and banning contributions from all other sources. As for the costs of running campaigns, TV stations, radio stations, etc have to be licensed and they are for the most part getting public bandwidth dirt-cheap, and should be expected to air debates free of charge.
But I know how to accomplish it under the current system. Vote for Nader. He espouses all of your views. Why should anybody listen to your plans to revamp the political system when you won't pull the anti-2-party lever yourself?
 
  • #1,113
jimmysnyder said:
But I know how to accomplish it under the current system. Vote for Nader. He espouses all of your views. Why should anybody listen to your plans to revamp the political system when you won't pull the anti-2-party lever yourself?
I don't question your personal support for Nadar but Republicans will be urging democrats to vote for Nadar as the next installment of Operation Chaos to ensure a Republican victory.
 
  • #1,114
Art said:
I don't question your personal support for Nadar but Republicans will be urging democrats to vote for Nadar as the next installment of Operation Chaos to ensure a Republican victory.
So what? It is better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it. Are you suggesting that he not vote for what he wants, and vote for something he doesn't want? Turbo wants, needs, out of the 2-party system. For fear of giving pleasure to the Republican enemy he should vote for the Democratic enemy? That's rich.
 
  • #1,115
That's where realpolitik (or game theory for that matter) kicks in and you vote against someone rather than for someone to get your best achievable result.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,116
Art said:
get your best achievable result.
There you have it turbo, Art has declared your needs unachievable. Do you agree with him?
 
  • #1,117
Art said:
We already do exactly that here in Ireland but we still end up with a party system, albeit 3 parties rather than 2 with just a handful of independents.

Yeah, it's not going to eliminate party politics; the idea is simply to break the hold that the two party system enjoys in winner-take-all elections. Even if all you end up with is a small (but significant) third party, you've still eliminated most of the downsides of two-party politics. For that matter, I'm not sure it's such a great goal to have too many parties anyway. It seems like a recipe for gridlock and inaction, although much would depend on how the executive and legislature were related. Many people consider the decisiveness of winner-take-all systems to be an advantage (although it should be mentioned that many people cite the same property as an advantage of authoritarian rule over republican principles).
 
  • #1,118
jimmysnyder said:
There you have it turbo, Art has declared your needs unachievable. Do you agree with him?
If the 'need' is to get Nadar elected then yes that need is unachievable.
 
  • #1,119
quadraphonics said:
Yeah, it's not going to eliminate party politics; the idea is simply to break the hold that the two party system enjoys in winner-take-all elections. Even if all you end up with is a small (but significant) third party, you've still eliminated most of the downsides of two-party politics. For that matter, I'm not sure it's such a great goal to have too many parties anyway. It seems like a recipe for gridlock and inaction, although much would depend on how the executive and legislature were related. Many people consider the decisiveness of winner-take-all systems to be an advantage (although it should be mentioned that many people cite the same property as an advantage of authoritarian rule over republican principles).
When one looks at Italy with it's proportional representation resulting in about a zillion gov'ts since WW2 each one lasting for what seems like 5 minutes then yes there is a major problem with a myriad of small parties.

Even with 3 main parties one can end up with very undemocratic results. A few years ago in Ireland there was a situation where no party had an overall majority so the biggest party went into coalition with one of the smallest fringe parties who in payment had many of their policies pushed through as part of the gov't program despite having only won 1% of the popular vote at the polls. In fact they only had 2 elected members and both of them were given front bench ministerial positions.

My main problem with party politics is the loyalty of the politicians is focused on their party rather than the country or their constituents but it's hard to think of a workable alternative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,120
Art said:
My main problem with party politics is the loyalty of the politicians is focused on their party rather than the country or their constituents but it's hard to think of a workable alternative.

Amen, Art!
 
<h2>What are US Presidential Primaries?</h2><p>US Presidential Primaries are a series of state-level elections held by political parties to determine their respective nominees for the upcoming presidential election. These primaries are used to select delegates who will then attend the party's national convention and vote for their preferred candidate.</p><h2>When were the 2008 US Presidential Primaries held?</h2><p>The 2008 US Presidential Primaries were held between January and June of 2008. The first primary was held in Iowa on January 3rd, and the last primary was held in Montana on June 3rd.</p><h2>Who were the main candidates in the 2008 US Presidential Primaries?</h2><p>The main candidates in the 2008 US Presidential Primaries were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party, and John McCain for the Republican Party. Other notable candidates included Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul.</p><h2>How are delegates allocated in the US Presidential Primaries?</h2><p>Delegates are allocated to candidates based on the results of each state's primary election. The number of delegates each state has is determined by its population and its historical support for the party. Some states also have a winner-takes-all system, while others allocate delegates proportionally.</p><h2>Why are US Presidential Primaries important?</h2><p>US Presidential Primaries are important because they allow for the selection of the major party nominees for the upcoming presidential election. They also provide an opportunity for candidates to gain media attention, fundraise, and build momentum for their campaigns. Additionally, these primaries allow for the voices of individual voters to be heard in the selection of the next US President.</p>

What are US Presidential Primaries?

US Presidential Primaries are a series of state-level elections held by political parties to determine their respective nominees for the upcoming presidential election. These primaries are used to select delegates who will then attend the party's national convention and vote for their preferred candidate.

When were the 2008 US Presidential Primaries held?

The 2008 US Presidential Primaries were held between January and June of 2008. The first primary was held in Iowa on January 3rd, and the last primary was held in Montana on June 3rd.

Who were the main candidates in the 2008 US Presidential Primaries?

The main candidates in the 2008 US Presidential Primaries were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party, and John McCain for the Republican Party. Other notable candidates included Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul.

How are delegates allocated in the US Presidential Primaries?

Delegates are allocated to candidates based on the results of each state's primary election. The number of delegates each state has is determined by its population and its historical support for the party. Some states also have a winner-takes-all system, while others allocate delegates proportionally.

Why are US Presidential Primaries important?

US Presidential Primaries are important because they allow for the selection of the major party nominees for the upcoming presidential election. They also provide an opportunity for candidates to gain media attention, fundraise, and build momentum for their campaigns. Additionally, these primaries allow for the voices of individual voters to be heard in the selection of the next US President.

Similar threads

  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
82
Views
17K
Back
Top