Primaries

[dockinGA]

I'm always reticent to get involved in political discussions, much less start them, but what the heck, I'll do it anyway.

The discussions over the past few days regarding Trump/Biden have brought to my mind once again something that I think could help get us back towards a path of normalcy. Should the parties eliminate the whole primary system? I think the parties themselves would do a better job of nominating someone who is electable than allowing the most extreme, 'in-tune' voters on either side of the aisle choose which candidate they want to see on the ticket with little regard to how those candidates will appeal to the other 90% of the population (case in point, Herschel Walker, MTG, just to name a few that I'm currently dealing with as a Georgian). I have a really hard time believing that some of these candidates would've ever been on the ticket in the first 150ish years of the republic, pre-primary system.

This would, of course, come with a whole set of new problems, but I can't help but think that there has to be a better way.

[Mountaineer]

I sometimes wonder if a lottery of all citizens would be better than what we have devolved to. Okay number 2,567,345, you are hereby a member of the House of Representatives (or Senate, or President, or Governor, etc) for one and only one 6 year term. Pay will be 200% of your current job plus expenses with no pension. Yada, yada, yada with lots of details to be worked out.

[joypog]

How about ranked choice voting or open primaries?

(I think that our current system is messed up but haven't ever pondered how to fix it aside from hearing buzzwords like noted above)

[dockinGA]

I'm always reticent to get involved in political discussions, much less start them, but what the heck, I'll do it anyway.

The discussions over the past few days regarding Trump/Biden have brought to my mind once again something that I think could help get us back towards a path of normalcy. Should the parties eliminate the whole primary system? I think the parties themselves would do a better job of nominating someone who is electable than allowing the most extreme, 'in-tune' voters on either side of the aisle choose which candidate they want to see on the ticket with little regard to how those candidates will appeal to the other 90% of the population (case in point, Herschel Walker, MTG, just to name a few that I'm currently dealing with as a Georgian). I have a really hard time believing that some of these candidates would've ever been on the ticket in the first 150ish years of the republic, pre-primary system.

This would, of course, come with a whole set of new problems, but I can't help but think that there has to be a better way.

So you want the leadership of two eminently corrupt organizations (D&R) to choose the candidate they think is best? Because you think the elites would make those decisions in the interest of the public?

If you want to change the system for the better, only allow people with an IQ of 100+ to vote.

I trust the parties to make better choices than the American populace has done recently, yes. Whether they're acting in my interests or not, I don't care. The American people are not acting in their own interests, either, otherwise we wouldn't be getting these clowns.

[Kbg]

I don't think the elites choose anybody. That power is still squarely with John and Jane Q. Public. Certainly they throw money around to back people which gives those candidates an advantage. If you are a conservative you have yourself to blame for making this aspect of things even worse. When the equal time broadcasting rules and campaign funding laws were struck down, game on for the elites and big money backers in both parties.

However, we can blame John and Jane some as well...the majority of them are usually checked out/don't care.

[Xan]

In the pre-primary era, the criticism was of the "smoke-filled room" where a handful of people selected the guy who had a 50% shot at being president. Elections for primaries were invented to allay that concern. I agree that they tend to not produce great results.

I like Mountaineer's lottery idea but one layer down, so to speak. If you pick an office by lottery, most likely you'll end up with somebody who's relatively moderate, but it could be a nut (politically, mentally, you name it). Take for example the office of POTUS: what if each state selected its electors by lottery, and those electors had to meet and decide who should be POTUS amongst themselves? With, say, 75% of the vote required?

That could work for other offices. Suppose registering to vote meant being eligible for this lottery. It would be like jury duty.

[flyingpylon]

The RNC and DNC are private clubs in the business of politics. Their constituents are the wealthy donors, corporations and lobbyists that support them and benefit most from the government's policy decisions. They are only responsive to ordinary Americans to the extent necessary to maintain their grip on power and perpetuate the myth that the people are still in control.

Together they already control the primary process. They set the rules, influence the primary calendar, approve the candidates, control resources, etc. to their advantage making it almost impossible for an "outsider" to compete, let alone win. The RNC got caught off-guard in 2016, but it took someone with the brash character, notoriety, and financial resources of Donald Trump to do it. Not a lot of those people around. On the other hand, the DNC was able to squelch the populist uprising of Bernie Sanders in '16 and '20.

The parties act like they are terrified of "the people" gaining more control. After all, there are trillions of dollars at stake. Trump and Sanders would not even be in the mix if the parties were more responsive to the needs of average Americans.

So... more power to the parties? No thanks. Pure populism may not be the answer, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way in recent decades.

[Kbg]

To fp's post: +1

[vnatale]

I'm always reticent to get involved in political discussions, much less start them, but what the heck, I'll do it anyway.

The discussions over the past few days regarding Trump/Biden have brought to my mind once again something that I think could help get us back towards a path of normalcy. Should the parties eliminate the whole primary system? I think the parties themselves would do a better job of nominating someone who is electable than allowing the most extreme, 'in-tune' voters on either side of the aisle choose which candidate they want to see on the ticket with little regard to how those candidates will appeal to the other 90% of the population (case in point, Herschel Walker, MTG, just to name a few that I'm currently dealing with as a Georgian). I have a really hard time believing that some of these candidates would've ever been on the ticket in the first 150ish years of the republic, pre-primary system.

This would, of course, come with a whole set of new problems, but I can't help but think that there has to be a better way.

So you want the leadership of two eminently corrupt organizations (D&R) to choose the candidate they think is best? Because you think the elites would make those decisions in the interest of the public?

If you want to change the system for the better, only allow people with an IQ of 100+ to vote.

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it but we don't have any IW tests. Some high IQ people have low wisdom.

I'm sure you have questioned / wondered why someone you know is quite intelligent can believes a certain way (almost always the opposite of you).

[vnatale]

How about ranked choice voting or open primaries?

(I think that our current system is messed up but haven't ever pondered how to fix it aside from hearing buzzwords like noted above)

As an accountant who loves to drown myself in choices, information, complexity .. I'd be all for ranked choice.

[vnatale]

The RNC and DNC are private clubs in the business of politics. Their constituents are the wealthy donors, corporations and lobbyists that support them and benefit most from the government's policy decisions. They are only responsive to ordinary Americans to the extent necessary to maintain their grip on power and perpetuate the myth that the people are still in control.

Together they already control the primary process. They set the rules, influence the primary calendar, approve the candidates, control resources, etc. to their advantage making it almost impossible for an "outsider" to compete, let alone win. The RNC got caught off-guard in 2016, but it took someone with the brash character, notoriety, and financial resources of Donald Trump to do it. Not a lot of those people around. On the other hand, the DNC was able to squelch the populist uprising of Bernie Sanders in '16 and '20.

The parties act like they are terrified of "the people" gaining more control. After all, there are trillions of dollars at stake. Trump and Sanders would not even be in the mix if the parties were more responsive to the needs of average Americans.

So... more power to the parties? No thanks. Pure populism may not be the answer, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way in recent decades.

Excellent!

[dockinGA]

The RNC and DNC are private clubs in the business of politics. Their constituents are the wealthy donors, corporations and lobbyists that support them and benefit most from the government's policy decisions. They are only responsive to ordinary Americans to the extent necessary to maintain their grip on power and perpetuate the myth that the people are still in control.

Together they already control the primary process. They set the rules, influence the primary calendar, approve the candidates, control resources, etc. to their advantage making it almost impossible for an "outsider" to compete, let alone win. The RNC got caught off-guard in 2016, but it took someone with the brash character, notoriety, and financial resources of Donald Trump to do it. Not a lot of those people around. On the other hand, the DNC was able to squelch the populist uprising of Bernie Sanders in '16 and '20.

The parties act like they are terrified of "the people" gaining more control. After all, there are trillions of dollars at stake. Trump and Sanders would not even be in the mix if the parties were more responsive to the needs of average Americans.

So... more power to the parties? No thanks. Pure populism may not be the answer, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way in recent decades.

Great post with good points. Something has to change, but I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe I'm just jaded because I feel like the people who end up on the ballot in my areas are always horrible candidates, in some cases (Herschel Walker for instance, who seems completely unable to string together works to make a complete sentence) completely unelectable. His case in particular seems like an avoidable situation: Just make sure the 'people' aren't given a choice to listen to Trump's endorsement and vote for him in a primary.

[vnatale]

The RNC and DNC are private clubs in the business of politics. Their constituents are the wealthy donors, corporations and lobbyists that support them and benefit most from the government's policy decisions. They are only responsive to ordinary Americans to the extent necessary to maintain their grip on power and perpetuate the myth that the people are still in control.

Together they already control the primary process. They set the rules, influence the primary calendar, approve the candidates, control resources, etc. to their advantage making it almost impossible for an "outsider" to compete, let alone win. The RNC got caught off-guard in 2016, but it took someone with the brash character, notoriety, and financial resources of Donald Trump to do it. Not a lot of those people around. On the other hand, the DNC was able to squelch the populist uprising of Bernie Sanders in '16 and '20.

The parties act like they are terrified of "the people" gaining more control. After all, there are trillions of dollars at stake. Trump and Sanders would not even be in the mix if the parties were more responsive to the needs of average Americans.

So... more power to the parties? No thanks. Pure populism may not be the answer, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way in recent decades.

Great post with good points. Something has to change, but I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe I'm just jaded because I feel like the people who end up on the ballot in my areas are always horrible candidates, in some cases (Herschel Walker for instance, who seems completely unable to string together works to make a complete sentence) completely unelectable. His case in particular seems like an avoidable situation: Just make sure the 'people' aren't given a choice to listen to Trump's endorsement and vote for him in a primary.

It seems crazy that in politics we end up with so many candidates who seem unqualified for the position. Unlike in the rest of society wherein people in positions of authority are generally qualified? Or, is my view off the mark?

[joypog]

Job #1 is to get elected. So they are qualified in the most basic sense.

[vnatale]

Job #1 is to get elected. So they are qualified in the most basic sense.

It's not the best person who gets the job. It is the person who does the best job in the interview.

Winning the interview and doing the job can be two totally different things.

[dockinGA]

The RNC and DNC are private clubs in the business of politics. Their constituents are the wealthy donors, corporations and lobbyists that support them and benefit most from the government's policy decisions. They are only responsive to ordinary Americans to the extent necessary to maintain their grip on power and perpetuate the myth that the people are still in control.

Together they already control the primary process. They set the rules, influence the primary calendar, approve the candidates, control resources, etc. to their advantage making it almost impossible for an "outsider" to compete, let alone win. The RNC got caught off-guard in 2016, but it took someone with the brash character, notoriety, and financial resources of Donald Trump to do it. Not a lot of those people around. On the other hand, the DNC was able to squelch the populist uprising of Bernie Sanders in '16 and '20.

The parties act like they are terrified of "the people" gaining more control. After all, there are trillions of dollars at stake. Trump and Sanders would not even be in the mix if the parties were more responsive to the needs of average Americans.

So... more power to the parties? No thanks. Pure populism may not be the answer, but the pendulum has swung too far the other way in recent decades.

Great post with good points. Something has to change, but I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe I'm just jaded because I feel like the people who end up on the ballot in my areas are always horrible candidates, in some cases (Herschel Walker for instance, who seems completely unable to string together works to make a complete sentence) completely unelectable. His case in particular seems like an avoidable situation: Just make sure the 'people' aren't given a choice to listen to Trump's endorsement and vote for him in a primary.

It seems crazy that in politics we end up with so many candidates who seem unqualified for the position. Unlike in the rest of society wherein people in positions of authority are generally qualified? Or, is my view off the mark?

I don't think your view is off the mark at all. Sadly, I think politics just attracts a disproportionate number of low-life, extortionate hacks who have no ability to do anything productive in life and make their living off of hoodwinking unsuspecting individuals. These are the same people who make a little fortune from running immoral law practices, other businesses, etc., and when they reach the end of the client base they can exploit they have nowhere else to hide other than the world of politics. And unfortunately, the voting populace has zero will (or ability) to separate the wheat from the chaff and elevate the handful of true public servants to higher office. Those extortionate hacks do have one skill: the ability to destroy the lives of 'good people' who might want to run for public office. Swipe a candy bar as a 12 year old kid, write a vulgar comment in somebody's high school year book 40 years ago? You better not run for office or your entire life and family name will be smeared.

[vnatale]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ch ... ORM%3DVDRE

I was just informed of this 2020 ad in the segment of Washington Journal that is on right now.

Astounding!

[Kbg]

One thing that I think is an "us" problem...who would want to be a politician these days?

Death treats, public harassment, physical violence. The right rails on the left when this gets done to police officers but it's completely fine for other public officials???

There's a certain amount of if you can't stand the heat don't get in the fire, but men and women of integrity who actually want to be good public servants (and I've met many over my life) should be able to serve, hold opinions and not worry about who's driving by their house late at night.

If enough people don't like what they are doing the solution is simple, vote them out of office.

Where I live it is getting so bad that if you want to be on a small city or town council there's a good chance you won't even have to run!

[I Shrugged]

I can’t help but think that the system was well designed for elections and governance when only male landowners could vote. Now that anyone who can fog a mirror can vote, elections are as H. L. Mencken said, “advanced auctions of stolen goods.”

And Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” But, the two quotes are not exactly opposing.

To me, the best answer is limited government, which offers fewer opportunities for buying votes etc. Of course, that ship has not only sailed, it has sunk to the bottom of the Mariana Trench with all hands lost.

The next best answer is smaller units of government. Maybe November 1989 was the top of Peak Big Government Conglomerates. Maybe today’s globalist movement is the dumb money that comes in near the end of the bubble. I don’t think globalism is going to pan out. Obviously I’m seeing it my way.

[I Shrugged]

One thing that I think is an "us" problem...who would want to be a politician these days?

Death treats, public harassment, physical violence. The right rails on the left when this gets done to police officers but it's completely fine for other public officials???

snip

It seems that many people who want to be politicians are indeed the worst kinds of people. Good people don’t need the grief, even without the harassment.

And no, that doesn’t justify the other stuff.

[Kbg]

I think quite a bit of this comes from the ability to be a professional politician which is why I am a fan of term limits. Can't remember if I wrote this already but lets say you're a polisci major and this is your jam, fine go be a professional politician but you only get to hold one office for X amount of time and then you have to go compete for something else.

It's getting ever more out of fashion for the right, but one of the reasons we have a civil service is because the entire system used to be corrupt with every govt employee employed up to the next election if their boy lost. No expertise, no checks and tons of motivation to take everything you could get your hands on while it lasted.

[vnatale]

I can’t help but think that the system was well designed for elections and governance when only male landowners could vote. Now that anyone who can fog a mirror can vote, elections are as H. L. Mencken said, “advanced auctions of stolen goods.”

And Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” But, the two quotes are not exactly opposing.

To me, the best answer is limited government, which offers fewer opportunities for buying votes etc. Of course, that ship has not only sailed, it has sunk to the bottom of the Mariana Trench with all hands lost.

The next best answer is smaller units of government. Maybe November 1989 was the top of Peak Big Government Conglomerates. Maybe today’s globalist movement is the dumb money that comes in near the end of the bubble. I don’t think globalism is going to pan out. Obviously I’m seeing it my way.

Assuming that they vote for both sides .... then don't they just even things out? Or, cancel one another's votes?

[dockinGA]

I can’t help but think that the system was well designed for elections and governance when only male landowners could vote. Now that anyone who can fog a mirror can vote, elections are as H. L. Mencken said, “advanced auctions of stolen goods.”

Sometimes I think about my all time favorite book, 1984, and consider that there is some wisdom in the system of government they had, minus the Big Brother/propaganda/authoritarian aspects of it. The proles had no power, were largely unaware of that, and were the happier for it. At times it seems like we allow 'the proles' to have total control, while at other times we do have elements of 'the proles' having no control whatsoever and being unaware of it while they gamble and drink and watch football and wrasslin. It's sad to admit, but I'm really not a fan of universal suffrage. I in no way advocate for voting rights to be based on stupid stuff like skin color, sex, etc., but there really should be pretty stringent requirements on who has a say in how the country is run. If you're incapable of running your own household, understanding basic business concepts, making rational decisions, etc., I don't think you should have a say in running the country.

[vnatale]

I can’t help but think that the system was well designed for elections and governance when only male landowners could vote. Now that anyone who can fog a mirror can vote, elections are as H. L. Mencken said, “advanced auctions of stolen goods.”

Sometimes I think about my all time favorite book, 1984, and consider that there is some wisdom in the system of government they had, minus the Big Brother/propaganda/authoritarian aspects of it. The proles had no power, were largely unaware of that, and were the happier for it. At times it seems like we allow 'the proles' to have total control, while at other times we do have elements of 'the proles' having no control whatsoever and being unaware of it while they gamble and drink and watch football and wrasslin. It's sad to admit, but I'm really not a fan of universal suffrage. I in no way advocate for voting rights to be based on stupid stuff like skin color, sex, etc., but there really should be pretty stringent requirements on who has a say in how the country is run. If you're incapable of running your own household, understanding basic business concepts, making rational decisions, etc., I don't think you should have a say in running the country.

Don't think you could ever come up with something that could be well defined. As I said above most of the voters of a certain ilk will cancel one another out.

I'm more concerned about having presidential candidates who have the qualifications to run for president.

[boglerdude]

Like...at a minimum be willing to show up in person with ID.

Politicians dont need qualifications...you want great surgeons to stay in practice forever and great politicians to get out