Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Why, in a national election, isn't there a NATIONAL standard on how we vote, how votes are distributed, how delegates are assigned, etc., etc.?

I get that for local/state elections "states rights" could prevail and they could elect their local officials any way they want, but I just don't understand why we have 50 different methods of determining who "wins" a state depending on lines drawn on a map.

AZGrizFan wrote:Why, in a national election, isn't there a NATIONAL standard on how we vote, how votes are distributed, how delegates are assigned, etc., etc.?

I get that for local/state elections "states rights" could prevail and they could elect their local officials any way they want, but I just don't understand why we have 50 different methods of determining who "wins" a state depending on lines drawn on a map.

That might bring transparency. The establishment doesn't want that.

I can e-file my taxes. Why can't I e-file my vote?

AZGrizFan wrote:Why, in a national election, isn't there a NATIONAL standard on how we vote, how votes are distributed, how delegates are assigned, etc., etc.?

I get that for local/state elections "states rights" could prevail and they could elect their local officials any way they want, but I just don't understand why we have 50 different methods of determining who "wins" a state depending on lines drawn on a map.

States rights.

AZGrizFan wrote:Why, in a national election, isn't there a NATIONAL standard on how we vote, how votes are distributed, how delegates are assigned, etc., etc.?

I get that for local/state elections "states rights" could prevail and they could elect their local officials any way they want, but I just don't understand why we have 50 different methods of determining who "wins" a state depending on lines drawn on a map.

I think it's the fact that parties run for government, but aren't technically a part of it. At their very core, it's just a group of people that can set their own parameters. If we started the CS Party, no outsiders should be able to tell us how we pick our nominee; CS members should set the rules.

∞∞∞ wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Why, in a national election, isn't there a NATIONAL standard on how we vote, how votes are distributed, how delegates are assigned, etc., etc.?

I get that for local/state elections "states rights" could prevail and they could elect their local officials any way they want, but I just don't understand why we have 50 different methods of determining who "wins" a state depending on lines drawn on a map.

I think it's the fact that parties run for government, but aren't technically a part of it. At their very core, it's just a group of people that can set their own parameters. If we started the CS Party, no outsiders should be able to tell us how we pick our nominee; CS members should set the rules.

But again, the "parties" are divided along arbitrary state lines in a NATIONAL election....the system really is broken. The inability to be able to vote for Gary Johnson today really proves that.

AZGrizFan wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I think it's the fact that parties run for government, but aren't technically a part of it. At their very core, it's just a group of people that can set their own parameters. If we started the CS Party, no outsiders should be able to tell us how we pick our nominee; CS members should set the rules.

But again, the "parties" are divided along arbitrary state lines in a NATIONAL election....the system really is broken. The inability to be able to vote for Gary Johnson today really proves that.

You can vote for Gary Johnson in the election if you'd like. But, if you want to vote for a Republican, then you need to vote for the people they have as their approved candidates. Ditto Democrats.

This is the problem with a two party system. Not much choice...and those choices are heavily controlled by the parties.

Break the parties.

Cluck U wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
But again, the "parties" are divided along arbitrary state lines in a NATIONAL election....the system really is broken. The inability to be able to vote for Gary Johnson today really proves that.

You can vote for Gary Johnson in the election if you'd like. But, if you want to vote for a Republican, then you need to vote for the people they have as their approved candidates. Ditto Democrats.

This is the problem with a two party system. Not much choice...and those choices are heavily controlled by the parties.

Break the parties.

I'm not sure that's going to happen in my lifetime.

AZGrizFan wrote:Why, in a national election, isn't there a NATIONAL standard on how we vote, how votes are distributed, how delegates are assigned, etc., etc.?

I get that for local/state elections "states rights" could prevail and they could elect their local officials any way they want, but I just don't understand why we have 50 different methods of determining who "wins" a state depending on lines drawn on a map.

Yeah, that inconvenient little document called the Constitution.

∞∞∞ wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Why, in a national election, isn't there a NATIONAL standard on how we vote, how votes are distributed, how delegates are assigned, etc., etc.?

I get that for local/state elections "states rights" could prevail and they could elect their local officials any way they want, but I just don't understand why we have 50 different methods of determining who "wins" a state depending on lines drawn on a map.

I think it's the fact that parties run for government, but aren't technically a part of it. At their very core, it's just a group of people that can set their own parameters. If we started the CS Party, no outsiders should be able to tell us how we pick our nominee; CS members should set the rules.

CS Party? Talk about a perpetually deadlocked convention.

Baldy wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Why, in a national election, isn't there a NATIONAL standard on how we vote, how votes are distributed, how delegates are assigned, etc., etc.?

I get that for local/state elections "states rights" could prevail and they could elect their local officials any way they want, but I just don't understand why we have 50 different methods of determining who "wins" a state depending on lines drawn on a map.

Yeah, that inconvenient little document called the Constitution.

That's right. We have the Electoral College and remarkably few constraints on how States conduct their voting process, whether for state or national elections.

But an Article V Convention of the States can change all that.

Right, Cluck?

Ivytalk wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I think it's the fact that parties run for government, but aren't technically a part of it. At their very core, it's just a group of people that can set their own parameters. If we started the CS Party, no outsiders should be able to tell us how we pick our nominee; CS members should set the rules.

CS Party? Talk about a perpetually deadlocked convention.

SIT DOWN and SHUT UP.
I am announcing my bid for the nomination of the CS Party.
I'm all EC(b). I'm all Fuck You.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: CS Party? Talk about a perpetually deadlocked convention.

SIT DOWN and SHUT UP.
I am announcing my bid for the nomination of the CS Party.
I'm all EC(b). I'm all Fuck You.

You're a lightweight. You've abandoned the EC(b).

I'm a winner. Look at the polls.

This superdelegate idea is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever heard of. Delegates should be awarded proportionately instead of effectively ignoring the voters.

Ibanez wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: SIT DOWN and SHUT UP.
I am announcing my bid for the nomination of the CS Party.
I'm all EC(b). I'm all Fuck You.

You're a lightweight. You've abandoned the EC(b).

I'm a winner. Look at the polls.

Yeah, I checked the polls (no homo) and they're clearly biased towards the establishment. It's the framing of the questions...not even a single one regarding whether you'd a trust a person who wears squared toed shoes with the future of the country. And the sample diversity and size...a couple screen names from an IP address in Charlotte and that fictitious BTK guy you're always yammering about do not constitute an accurate picture.

Me, on the other hand, I truly have mass appeal! From the toothless hill folk of Appalachia to the scrapple loving urbanites of the Delmarva Peninsula, to Lacassine Parsish...people recognize and will follow a born leader!

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
You can vote for Gary Johnson in the election if you'd like. But, if you want to vote for a Republican, then you need to vote for the people they have as their approved candidates. Ditto Democrats.

This is the problem with a two party system. Not much choice...and those choices are heavily controlled by the parties.

Break the parties.

I'm not sure that's going to happen in my lifetime.

It won't unless more people start supporting and voting third party in the general.

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote: You're a lightweight. You've abandoned the EC(b).

I'm a winner. Look at the polls.

Yeah, I checked the polls (no homo) and they're clearly biased towards the establishment. It's the framing of the questions...not even a single one regarding whether you'd a trust a person who wears squared toed shoes with the future of the country. And the sample diversity and size...a couple screen names from an IP address in Charlotte and that fictitious BTK guy you're always yammering about do not constitute an accurate picture.

Me, on the other hand, I truly have mass appeal! From the toothless hill folk of Appalachia to the scrapple loving urbanites of the Delmarva Peninsula, to Lacassine Parsish...people recognize and will follow a born leader!

Shit. I haven't talked to BTK in months. I should call him up for lunch.

ASUG8 wrote:This superdelegate idea is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever heard of. Delegates should be awarded proportionately instead of effectively ignoring the voters.

Dems really don't represent the masses. And the Repubs don't either. Check out the Colorado R caucus...WTF is that about?

Everyone complains about the system...but no one does anything about it because they still point, and fear, the, "other" side.

This is actually time when you can break one party. And I hope Bernie still gives Hillary fits and splits that party, too.

It is the only way to get a third party that represents the middle ground.

For the good of the country...vote for Trump and Bernie. Vote early, and often.

Team Brown and Team Black are taking crumbs from their Dem masters instead of joining with 'Merica against the racist fools and the intolerant clowns on both sides of the aisle.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
You can vote for Gary Johnson in the election if you'd like. But, if you want to vote for a Republican, then you need to vote for the people they have as their approved candidates. Ditto Democrats.

This is the problem with a two party system. Not much choice...and those choices are heavily controlled by the parties.

Break the parties.

I'm not sure that's going to happen in my lifetime.

This may be the last chance

Ivytalk wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: I think it's the fact that parties run for government, but aren't technically a part of it. At their very core, it's just a group of people that can set their own parameters. If we started the CS Party, no outsiders should be able to tell us how we pick our nominee; CS members should set the rules.

CS Party? Talk about a perpetually deadlocked convention.

You could pick a Congress from this site and not have any worse government than were getting.

Cluck U wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:This superdelegate idea is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever heard of. Delegates should be awarded proportionately instead of effectively ignoring the voters.

Dems really don't represent the masses. And the Repubs don't either. Check out the Colorado R caucus...WTF is that about?

Everyone complains about the system...but no one does anything about it because they still point, and fear, the, "other" side.

This is actually time when you can break one party. And I hope Bernie still gives Hillary fits and splits that party, too.

It is the only way to get a third party that represents the middle ground.

For the good of the country...vote for Trump and Bernie. Vote early, and often.

Team Brown and Team Black are taking crumbs from their Dem masters instead of joining with 'Merica against the racist fools and the intolerant clowns on both sides of the aisle.

Da, comrade!

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm not sure that's going to happen in my lifetime.

This may be the last chance

ASUG8 wrote:This superdelegate idea is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever heard of. Delegates should be awarded proportionately instead of effectively ignoring the voters.

Republicans also have this. They just call it by a different name.

Bernie is going to lose - superdelegates or not.

But, imagine a brokered convention. Or is Rubio and Cruz present themselves as running mates and combine delegates at the convention. The Republican establishment is shocked / pissed about Trump. Not out of the question at all that they pull some shit.

Sure it's possible for Democrats as well. But, Clinton is going to win outright (unfortunately). Trump will win outright for the Republicans. If either party overturns the vote of the people, IMO. it's Republicans.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:This superdelegate idea is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever heard of. Delegates should be awarded proportionately instead of effectively ignoring the voters.

Republicans also have this. They just call it by a different name.

Bernie is going to lose - superdelegates or not.

But, imagine a brokered convention. Or is Rubio and Cruz present themselves as running mates and combine delegates at the convention. The Republican establishment is shocked / pissed about Trump. Not out of the question at all that they pull some shit.

Sure it's possible for Democrats as well. But, Clinton is going to win outright (unfortunately). Trump will win outright for the Republicans. If either party overturns the vote of the people, IMO. it's Republicans.

Did you watch Romney's speech just now?

I saw a couple of excerpts - but, haven't read his speech

I'd vote for him over Trump ot clinton, though.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:This superdelegate idea is the biggest crock of bullshit I've ever heard of. Delegates should be awarded proportionately instead of effectively ignoring the voters.

Republicans also have this. They just call it by a different name.

Bernie is going to lose - superdelegates or not.

But, imagine a brokered convention. Or is Rubio and Cruz present themselves as running mates and combine delegates at the convention. The Republican establishment is shocked / pissed about Trump. Not out of the question at all that they pull some ****.

Sure it's possible for Democrats as well. But, Clinton is going to win outright (unfortunately). Trump will win outright for the Republicans. If either party overturns the vote of the people, IMO. it's Republicans.

And if Rubio and Cruz collaborate to form the all-Cuban Dream Ticket, they'll collectively have a higher percentage of the GOP primary electorate than Trumpdick. So there!