10 Dec 2003 | The Scholar said...

Now that Gore has put his backing on Dean is there even a point to having these primaries?

10 Dec 2003 | ~bc said...

You can write in anyone you want for President. Even Don Schenck. No one's stopping you. On the other hand, is our voting system flawed? Hell yes. Are the primaries the worst of it? Hardly. Let's fight for preference voting first, then deal with the rest, so we're not limited to 2 major parties, and blame "ousiders" for the defeat of one of them... like they didn't have a right to even run! It's crap.

10 Dec 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Actually Don might stand a good chance of winning Florida at least: you can be sure the number one item on his agenda will be to lift those trade and travel embargoes on Cuba so's he can get a steady supply of great cigars.

Shenck for President in 2004!

10 Dec 2003 | SU said...

Now that Gore has put his backing on Dean is there even a point to having these primaries?

That's the point -- we're like a jury who knows too much about the case to be impartial. And as the primary season continues, our opinions will be even more informed.

As Matt Ridley argues in his book, The Origin of Virtue, we are a very "groupish" species, easily swayed by fads and trends because it was a helpful trait to have during our early development. But it's not always a good trait to have ("just because John jumps off the bridge doesn't mean you have to.").

10 Dec 2003 | Chris said...

National Primary Day would be an even bigger advantage to incumbants and well financed establishment guys. To use the hot example - Dean would never be where he is in a national primary scenario. His fundraising success is predicated a lot on early polling results in NH - which allowed him to build some momentum. Clinton did the same thing - finished 2nd if I remember correctly, which kept him in the game until he got to the southern primaries and started rolling. Who would care that Dean was winning NH if NH didn't matter, because it was just one primary of 50. The only candidates who would ever have the cash to campaign in a lot of states at once are incumbants and maybe the establishment guys with the long term big money connections.

The current system certaintly is not perfect, but it at least gives some chance for an outsider to rock the system. National Primary Day would kill that.

10 Dec 2003 | SU said...

The current system certaintly is not perfect, but it at least gives some chance for an outsider to rock the system. National Primary Day would kill that.

I find this thinking flawed. First, the incumbent is virtually assured of his/her own party's nomination to begin with (see George W. Bush or Clinton in 1996). Second, only those candidates who refuse public financing (and are thereby unbound by their maximum caps) stand a chance of using momentum to increase their cash stockpiles. Note that Dean has made the decision to forego public financing before New Hampshire -- his momentum has not been driven by a single vote. Third, a slow-starting outsider is not inherently better than a well-financed insider (or early-leading outsider, for that matter).

You could argue equally effectively that Clinton performed well in spite of the way the primary system. He worked with what he was given and prevailed because in the end, he was the stronger candidate.

10 Dec 2003 | Benjy said...

I agree that the current system is greatly flawed. The primary system skews the nomination process, and thus the platform, heavily towards a few tiny states. The issues of New Hampshire and Iowa get greater emphasis than the issues facing California, Florida, New York, etc. which have a much greater impact on the nation as a whole.

Some states have decided to move up the dates of their primaries in order to have the influence that Iowa and New Hampshire do, while others have cancelled their primaries alltogether to save money since their decision is irrelevent anyway! This is wrong!

I like the idea of having a single primary day for all states, or maybe dividing it into two "Super Tuesdays" with even distribution of population, rural/urban, etc.

Once the primary process is fixed, on to the general election. I think that the current system creates unintended consequences that are detrimental to our best interests politically (just look in the White House). The combination of the electoral college process, and the plurality format prevents the country for actually getting a government that most closely mirrors the choices of the population. The last election exposed a number of these shortcomings. While the Electoral College made sense 225 years ago when transportation, etc. made elections very time consuming, there is little reason other than tradition to change to a system of direct elections. And by creating a system in which, in reality, there choices A and B, means that those who support C, D, etc. both don't get an adequate voice and can throw off the more preferable outcome for the majority of the population. In the past election, Nader's voters probably would have voted for Gore, meaning he'd have won and the views of his supporters would gain an ear within the administration in return for their support.

10 Dec 2003 | Darrel said...

The current system is gigantically flawed.

Enacting a system like Instant-run-off voting or the like would pretty much eliminate the need for primaries from the voter's perspective.

10 Dec 2003 | Chris said...

I do agree that an instant run-off system would be benefit in elections, however I disagree with the analysis above that we should dump the electoral college. If we had a direct election - candidates would only have to campaign in NY, LA, Chicago, Boston and a few other places. The votes of citizens in most of the small states would be effectively nullified. There aren't enough of them to counteract a candidate that can win a strong majority in the population centers. This is exactly what our founders were trying to combat when they set up the electorial college. The college insures that the citizens of the small states have just as much say (in proportion to their population) as the citizens of NY or CA in a national election.

I do realize that many, maybe most of you would consider that imbalance a good thing - since your political philosophies are generally aligned with the urban centers of the country. Luckily, the founding fathers saw that danger too, or more likely, the representaives from the smaller states way back then saw the danger.

Where's Don? I need some backup from the other token Libertarian that hangs out here.

10 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I wouldn't move to drop the trade embargo with Cuba right away. I'd just use the power of my office as President to get Cuban cigars sent to me. Like Kennedy did.

RE: "other token Libertarian"

This is a interesting subject. I think (THINK) I favor a direct election. I THINK.

I do, however, favor a Representative Congress based on the Parliamentary concept. That is, each group is represented in Congress. So, if 10 percent of the population votes Green Party, then the Green Party occupies 10 percent of the Congress.

10 Dec 2003 | pb said...

The Bush camp's take on Dean is curious. I'm not sure I would discount Dean at this stage. He's managed to get some whole new kind of momentum going.

10 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I've been a lifelong Republican / Libertarian. In other words, the Anti-Democrat.

As stupid as this may sound, Dean's (to me) radical rants sound attractive.

I think it's this: Perhaps if we try something RADICALLY different, all will fall into place and the world will be good.

10 Dec 2003 | norman said...

Don - that's why I like Kucinich and I am a life long "rightist". If you are going to be different, be different. An I am not saying "I like Kucinich" because I don't think he can win - I think he could and I really like his ideas. Maybe even enough to give him my vote. Because even if he is elected, the buffer of the house and senate would protect me from anything too radical (or maybe not...). To me, Dean doesn't impress. His smiling while talking thing really bugs me - just like the turkey neck of Bill Bradley - hard to get past.

10 Dec 2003 | JF said...

I need some backup from the other token Libertarian that hangs out here.

Ask ML. He's the other other Libertarian. Although ML rarely speaks up regarding political issues, which, in fact, is very Libertarian. What you say and do is your business, not his (as long as it doesn't interfere with his rights).

10 Dec 2003 | Darrel said...

If we had a direct election - candidates would only have to campaign in NY, LA, Chicago, Boston and a few other places.

That's not SO different than now, is it, where they campaign the most in the highest populated states? It's just on a slightly different scale.

I do, however, favor a Representative Congress based on the Parliamentary concept. That is, each group is represented in Congress. So, if 10 percent of the population votes Green Party, then the Green Party occupies 10 percent of the Congress.

I like this approach as well. What are the drawbacks?

10 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

The curent primary system sucks. The fact that you just need win a handful of primaries to have everyone drop off and become the de facto nominee is crap.

But that's more of a function of money and media, not the system.

That said, I'd rather have a series of regional primaries set up, and which one goes first rotates with each cycle. So, this year, the Northeast goes first, but in 2008 they go last, with everyone else moving up one. For example.

And the fact that Gore endorsed Dean will mean nothing. Dean may still win, but it won't be because of that.

(My money's on Clark actually - perhaps literally. He's the only one I see with a good, solid shot of beating Bush. I think Edwards could do it too, but he's never going to get out of the primaries.)

10 Dec 2003 | sn said...

YES! A national primary makes much more sense nowadays. With the proliferation of news outlets (tv, internet, papers, etc.) we already know what each candidate is up to and it shouldn't be up to the first couple of states with primaries to decide for us. If we scoot the primary date up a little bitlike sometime in the spring, it would give enough time for the candidates to do their stumping.

As for writing inha! I have yet to encounter a paper ballot and not a machine. With a machinewriting in is not even an option.

Get rid of the electoral college too while you're at it. The argument that it hurts the smaller states is bogus. What could be more democratic than one person=one vote?

10 Dec 2003 | Benjy said...

I like this approach as well. What are the drawbacks?

I also think a parliamentary style legislature would be more effective in getting the government to act in the interests of the public, because it would require coalitions among parties to enact legislation. Less "Us vs. Them" bickering.

However, there are huge Constitutional issues to deal with. Because the Constitution distributes seats in the House based on population, the number of seats states have vary from 1 to 52. Logistically I see a big issue in dividing up the seats among the parties were the system to keep the seats tied to states. While a large state like California or Texas might have enough Representatives to get a close approximation of seats to party votes, how do the small states with 1 or 2 divide seats among parties?

10 Dec 2003 | g said...

It's not too late to avoid giving bush his "ideal candidate". Cavuto has some interesting thoughts on that subject.

11 Dec 2003 | SU said...

Cavuto has some interesting thoughts on that subject.

Wow, that may be the first time I've ever agreed with Fox News! ;) Me, I'm hoping Clark can step out from beneath Dean's shadow and make a good run for it.

11 Dec 2003 | Chris said...

If we had a direct election - candidates would only have to campaign in NY, LA, Chicago, Boston and a few other places.

That's not SO different than now, is it, where they campaign the most in the highest populated states? It's just on a slightly different scale.

Well, Gore won all the major population centers, but he did not win the presidency. That is exactly the point of the electoral college. With a direct election you could easily be President and only campaign in the population centers. Even if Gore was President, I'm 100% sure we would have invaded Afghanistan, and I'd say it would be 70-30 we would be in Iraq right now. It probably doesn't really matter in the long run. With Congress so tight, everything gets compromised down to the LCD to get passed anyway.

There is a movement within certain libertarian circles to support a democrat just to get us back to a divided government. They do less damage that way!

And Don, the proportional representation stuff is interesting. Sometimes I think we ought to just pick Congress randomly - go back to real citizen legislators. They probably couldn't do much worse.

12 Dec 2003 | ~bc said...

Don, don't fear liking Dean. He's hardly your typical Democrat. He seems to have his own views (how, unusual!), where you should keep your house in order (financially, economically, internationally, ecologically) and treat those who need help, with kindness. He seems to have little interest in special interests. These are all good things in my book. And he sees that Bush is hand delivering this country to his buddies in a basket, and is rightfully angry about it, and not just "politely" like some of the "opposition."

I'm finding more and more now-a-days that terms like "right-wing" "left-wing" etc are pretty useless. People like pieces from all camps, like myself, a little progressive, a little libertarian, a little multi-lateral, and little isolationist. The best from all sides, and the visual description of politics must be 3-D. A sphere, perhaps?

12 Dec 2003 | JF said...

FYI, if you're interested, here's a streaming video of Dean on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

12 Dec 2003 | JF said...

That's a 1-hour video. Live from Harvard.

12 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Oh yeah ... Harvard ... that *cough* bastion of free speech *cough*. Where military members aren't allowed on campus to recruit ... yeah ... free *cough* speech. Sure, the Marines can die to defend free speech at Harvard ... "just stay the hell off my campus!".

12 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

The Dean interview at Harvard: I've watched about half. Impressive and he comes across as very intelligent. He sounds good; SOUNDS good. Time will tell.

But I must admit, I'm impressed.

12 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I would like to read Dean's stand on the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control.

12 Dec 2003 | JF said...

Dean on Gun Control.

12 Dec 2003 | Should Know Better said...

Yeah, I know, arguing on the Internet is like racing in the Special Olympics, but here I go anyway.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." unless, of course, they're homosexual. I realize that the military has served, and many have died, to protect my rights. Hell, a good number of them are and have been members of my family. However, I see no problem with telling the military they will be welcome to recruit on campus when they are ready to treat all Americans equally. I believe that's a direct message to the policy makers and don't see why anyone would take it as an insult to those who choose to serve and are welcomed into the Armed Forces.

12 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Good point. Thanks.

You see ... *reasoned* and *logical* and *devoid-of-name-calling* argument DOES have a place and CAN be a good thing, even on the internet.

Again, thanks.

13 Dec 2003 | Should Know Better said...

You're very welcome. And thank you. Have a great weekend.

16 Jan 2004 | Julius said...

At WWDC, I listened to Apple representatives make some excellent points about taking the time to build a 100%-compliant Aqua application, and I think all developers need to look beyond the code and listen to what the folks at Apple have to say

16 Jan 2004 | Laura said...

For example, if you see an AIM window peeking out from behind your browser and you click on it, that window will come to the front, but the main application window will not. The Mail.app/Activity Viewer is another example. The Aqua system of layers works well in many instances, but not in all. Thank goodness that the Dock is always there to come to the rescue. I know that clicking on an application icon in the Dock will always result in not only the application coming to the front, but also any non-minimized windows associated with it. And if the application is active but no windows are open, clicking on the Dock icon should create a new window in that application.

04 Feb 2005 | Penis Enlargement Pills said...

Enlarge Penis Size Increase Penis Size Naturally Erection Pill For Man Male Enhancement Review