The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

Boon Mee

Just another Salad Day for me there anty.
Salad as defined as pity for one such as yourself inflicted with Severe Acquired Leftist Anencephlic Dementia - SALAD

Hootad Binky

Remember they're just nominations for leadership! And it's a republic. I think it's more democratic to let regular people vote, state by state.

Ok predictions then for which Dems/Repubs will win South Carolina/Nevada tomorrow (Saturday)? Still a very close race.

William

^actually that's not 100% correct. Leadership (of the party for the forthcoming election) is not voted on until the Party Convention and there is no law that a delegate must vote for the person elected at State level.

By way of example, HC could win all the states' votes, but at the Convention BO could be voted in.

Unlikely to ever happen - yes. But possible under the law.

Hootad Binky

^ But perhaps possible in a very close election, like this one What if one candidate were scandalized or accused of something leading up to the convention? Couldn't the delegates change their vote?

Milkman

There is a budding "National Popular Vote" Movement, that wants to give all of the delegates in every state and D.C. to the candidate that wins the entire national vote. As we know, Al Gore received more votes than GWB in 2000.

At the moment, a couple of states (e.g. CO) split the delegates allotted to a candidate bases on the percentages of votes they receive in the state.

Here is one link to the National Popular Vote Movement: National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

_____________

Milkman

Yes, delegates can change their vote.

Or more accurately, they do not have to vote for whom they are supposed to vote for.

It's happened, very rarely.

In 1980 1 delegate (out of hundreds) cast a vote for Carter who was from a state that Reagan won.

Norton

And your vote on this would be?

Milkman

I am starting to think a National Popular Vote is better option.

In the future however, it could mean that the New York/East Coast region or say, California region would have more power due to higher populations.

The Electoral System was designed (at least ostensibly) to make sure smaller states, and lessor populated regions of the US had some decision-making powers.

Storekeeper

And hopefully this method will never be altered.

Milkman

Yeah, there are positive to the electoral college.

And even in the Caucuses and Primaries the smaller states and their citizens are playing some roll in the process. (Feb. 5th may be a major decider. Maybe not.)

William

^what I don't understand is that HC won the vote in Nevada, but BO got more convention nominees - 13 to HC's 12. So how, exactly, did HC win?

Milkman

The Caucus system seems odd to me. It's like a club that meets in a fire station, library, or town hall. They're called "Precincts."

I am assuming some precincts have more delegates than other precincts because the population of one precinct is higher than another.

Anyway, things will be more clear - perhaps - after Feb 5th.

chinthee

I think it has to do with the concept of a Convention Pledge, which is binding in some real respects. In other words, my understanding is you can lose Nevada, but still win the delegates from Nevada necessary to help you win at the Convention.

Hootad Binky

^ How bizarre!

William

BBC NEWS | Americas | US election focus turns to south

If you look at the article above, the table will show you that although OB has "lost" more primaries than HC, he has 38 delegates to her 36.

What interested me however, was an article in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald which said that the person you should be looking for - among the Democrats - is neither HC nor OB but Edwards. The reason why? He currently has 18 delegates and, subject to what happens on Super Tuesday, is almost certainly going to have enough delegates to make up any difference between the two. So, according to the SMH, either HC or OB could "lose" the primary, but so long as the offer JE a good enough carrot, could still win the nomination.

I love democracy in action

floorpotato

I just saw today's CNN debate and Edwards was very powerful. Hillary was even more unhinged and venomous than usual, accusing Obama of being an attorney for slumlords and supporting laws that allow sex shops near schools. What a frightening, hideous person she is. Edwards would flatten any leading Republican candidate. His economic populism just might catch on in the next few months as the US economy continues to unravel. But Edwards is running out of time and money.

AntRobertson

It really is kinda ridiculous to extraordinary amounts of money that's spent on these campaigns.

The fact that even the amount raised is newsworthy seems to me to indicate a fundamental issue with the whole process - the money doesn't come for free, it's basically a bunch of people with their own vested interests putting a punt on their candidate being nominated and then elected.

So before they've even ran in the race proper, all these candidates are beholden in some way or another to the 'special interests' of these people that have funded them. And of course anyone who can afford to 'donate' substantial sums of money in such a way isn't exactly representative of the people as a whole and their needs and wants.

Democracy in action huh.

__________________
'The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist. And like that... he is gone'

Texpat

TV advertising is a big cost. They also employ staffs for each state they're campaigning in. They travel a lot every day -- each stop can usually be measured in minutes. Maybe an hour for lunch or an hour for a proper speech. Some candidates just blow off certain states that they figure they're either a shoe-in or it's a lost cause. Many candidates also spend a lot of their own money on their campaigns.

I don't like the idea of blowing so much cash on "winning" the contest either, but if you don't raise some money and spend it wisely, you're toast.

Ideally, candidates would be judged purely on their platform, in a blind vote (voters wouldn't know if the candidate was a woman, a black or had three noses). Simply vote on the issues and the nation gets who they voted for ... ain't gonna happen.

AntRobertson

Yeah don't get me wrong though, I don't dispute that it's an expensive process nor think it's a waste of time (as you rightly point out candidates have to get their message out somehow). That being said though you would think there would be cheaper and more efficent options?

My concern with it is where the money comes from to pay for all this. Not in the sense that it's under-handed and shady, but that it comes with implicit 'favours' to be returned once the candidate's in office. The focus should be on the people, not paying back a 'favour' to some massive conglomerate or other.

[Edit]

I should also point out I'm referring to elections, big and small, in general. The US Primaries are just one of the more visable examples of this, happens pretty much in any eelection wherever it may be.