Re: Your Ideal Candidate

50/50 Divided America ... or just by default?

quote:

---

Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry remain tied in a Reuters/Zogby tracking poll as they head into tonight's final debate in Arizona. Bush has an edge over Kerry in an ABC News/Washington Post survey.

---

If we hypothetically had a multi party system, would your ideal candidate be President Bush or John Kerry? And if not ... who or what ideology would you support and what would the American majority select?

In an ideal system, there would not be only two parties. The two party system is he result of a "colllaboration" between the two parties done in such a way that inhibits the success of any new third party. The laws of the land now support (i.e. dictate) a two party system. The good news is that a two party system is better than a one party system, which is the unfortunate norm in many countries--(note that the repugs want to take us there). The bad news is that we have only two parties. This means that we get polarized candidates. The candiates that are nominated are often wholly unaccepable to nearly 50% of America. If we had a true multiparty system, we'd probably be electing someone with broad appeal, such as John McCain.

quote:

---

If we had a true multiparty system, we'd probably be electing someone with broad appeal, such as John McCain.

---

Hadn't thought of that ... I think you dead on the money. John McCain the winner with 20% of the vote. [:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich

quote:

---

If we had a true multiparty system, we'd probably be electing someone with broad appeal, such as John McCain.

---

Hadn't thought of that ... I think you dead on the money. John McCain the winner with 20% of the vote. [:D]

---

No, in a multiparty system, the "electoral college" would not be bound to vote for a particular candidate. They would be expected to make deals to maximize the strength of their party. Loss of support would result in the collaps of the government (something that's about to happen in Canada).

I like the idea of run-off elections, or instant run-off elections... in each round the canadate with the least votes is elimiated until a canadate with a clear majority exits. In the instant verison, voters rank 1st 2nd and 3rd (or more) choices. So lets say I put down: Kucinich, Nader, Dean, Kerry. The votes are talled and Kucinich has the least votes, so he's scratched off the list, so my second choice becomes my vote.... etc.. My ideal canadate probibly doesn't exist, but Kucinich and Nader are close. Too bad for me I was dumb and cast a "bandwagon" vote for Kerry in the primary...

I like that scenario - then you really see where the public is, rather than what they are most afraid of.

My ideal candidate would be.... me. [:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a2jettawagon
Too bad for me I was dumb and cast a "bandwagon" vote for Kerry in the primary...

---

Doh! A2, you should be ashamed of yourself! [;)] But really, as a Kucinich supporter and precinct delegate, it was quite frustrating seeing the "bandwagon" contingent take the wind out of the sails for progressive candidates such as Dean and Kucinich... I'm all for being a bit pragmatic in the general election, but it's hard to understand why in the primary/caucus phase, people don't vote their conscience--don't you suppose if everybody voted for their favorite candidate, we'd do a better job of selecting the most electible. (I know I'm opening myself up for accusations of naivety here, and someone will surely point out the McGovern campaign, but I truly believe that a party should nominate someone who represents the feelings of their membership instead of that of swing voters...) Anyway, A2, Michigan is looking pretty safe for Kerry. Check out Cobb/LaMarche instead of Nader if you're thinking of voting 3rd party...

Shoot, I'd vote for Mike Briggs. I'd vote for me if I could get Mike, Firehawk, ertzog, Rich and Autodiesel in my cabenet. I know that Rich and Autodiesel disagree with me on a lot of thigns but they'd serve to keep me sane and rational about my someties wacky ideas. :) There's no way I could vote for a 3rd party this time. As much as I might agree with the (green is it?) party platform, I'd have a heart attack if Bush carried Michigan and I didn't vote for Kerry. I'd support a parlmentary concept for government if I couldn't have my first choice of runoff elections.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a2jettawagon
Shoot, I'd vote for Mike Briggs. I'd vote for me if I could get Mike, Firehawk, ertzog, Rich and Autodiesel in my cabenet.

---

Why, thank you, A2...I consider that a great complement. [:)] Now, what would I be the Secretary of? [:p] Mike

There are many things that I think could be done to improve our elections - the primaries are basically the responsibility of the parties themselves. In the main election, they basically want their best candidate running, and nobody else from their party. A free-for-all election would probably result in some very bad choices. Take Iraq, for example. In the last survey, 42% of Iraqis said they'd prefer having Saddam back in power. But, say it were even lower - maybe 25%. Say Saddam was allowed to register for the election, along with 10 other candidates. If those 25% of the people who don't like change (and who did legitimately well under Saddam, as some people did) all vote for Saddam, most likely he'd win. If on the other hand the other 10 candidates were paired down to one or two that the people like the most, it would be far more likely that one of them would win. Basically the party/primary system allows the narrowing down of choices to only a couple of people who represent (usually) significantly different views, to better the chances (from each party's perspective) that someone from their viewpoint will win. The bigger issue though, and the one that I think should be fixed, is the electoral college. It basically results in elections being decided by a very small percentage of our population. If you live in states like Texas, California, Oklahoma, Vermont, etc., your vote essentially doesn't matter. Those states are essentially already decided, no matter who the candidates are. If you're a Democrat in Oklahoma, your vote is as meaningless as a Republican in Vermont. The result is that the "swing states" decide the election, and the rest of you don't matter. From a pure democracy standpoint, I'd prefer to see the electoral college eliminated, so only the popular vote matters. On the other hand, the "swing states" seem to be the ones where people think a lot more before casting their votes, usually with a very high percentage of independents (some of the non-swing states though also have a high percentage of independents/thinkers, such as Maine and IMO Massachusetts, even though Massachusetts usually votes D). So, perhaps it IS good that those states have the ultimate say....

quote:

---

Originally posted by BRBarian
If we had a true multiparty system, we'd probably be electing someone with broad appeal, such as John McCain.

---

Great, elect one of the "Keating Five". Bill

oh oh! can I be attorney general?

Ideal Candidate? One who tells the truth all the time and who is willing to take on the real problems facing this great nation rather than pretend they don`t exist. I don`t think I can come up with a single one who is doing this, at any level. [:(]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Briggs
My ideal candidate would be.... me. [:D]

---

Mike, you can't be president, you're a turkey! Bill

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chemical Bill

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Briggs
My ideal candidate would be.... me. [:D]

---

Mike, you can't be president, you're a turkey! Bill

---

Oops, I mean you were born in Turkey.[;)][:D] Bill