OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
GomezAddams said:
I *hope* that both the Republican party and Democratic party will wake up and realize that the people are tired of the same-old they've been giving us election after election. The overwhelming support for outsiders Trump and Sanders should be a HUGE clue stick (dope slap as Click and Clack would say) to the parties that their current strategy isn't working.
Click to expand...

But Hillary won the nomination! All is going according to plan, no need to change anything.
 
314578_full.jpg
 
sunvalleylaw said:
Well, the news sources are starting to call it. (Dem Primary) I like how the BBC handles it a lot better than the AP.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36465894

I don't like calling things before votes have been cast. it is a problem that has existed since before Hillary. Some years, it tends to make western voters feel as though their votes don't matter, which I think discourages participation. I wish there would be some sort of rules about reporting that would address this, but that would be problematic from a 1st Amendment pov. Pretty tough to tell people they cannot extrapolate and project based on their view of the math. Unfortunately, people mostly don't read far enough to realize it is extrapolations and projections (read educated guesses).
Click to expand...

I agree. The problem (or one of them anyway) is states keep one upping another and setting their primary earlier so as to be 'relevant'. It seems ridiculous that California has 475 delegates but they really don't seem to matter. I also hate general elections that are decided before our polls even close. I'd prefer a complete media blackout until all polls close. Studies show that early projections often lead to lower voter turnout in western states, which negatively affects local and state elections. The media will never go along with it though. They want to protect our 'right to know' (and their precious market share/ad income).
 
335clone said:
I agree. The problem (or one of them anyway) is states keep one upping another and setting their primary earlier so as to be 'relevant'. It seems ridiculous that California has 475 delegates but they really don't seem to matter. I also hate general elections that are decided before our polls even close. I'd prefer a complete media blackout until all polls close. Studies show that early projections often lead to lower voter turnout in western states, which negatively affects local and state elections. The media will never go along with it though. They want to protect our 'right to know' (and their precious market share/ad income).
Click to expand...

What they should do is make the eastern states polls stay open longer. Then they aren't counting the votes until most of the west coast has had a chance to vote.
 
Flamencology said:
Or, better yet, scrap the electoral college altogether and get the popular vote.

With instant runoff.
Click to expand...


I would be ok with this, especially if there was some sort of test to make sure voters understood how are government works and the key issues.

How you do that without somebody shouting something about Jim Crow is beyond me.
 
Vote matters as much as it did yesterday when AP reported and rest of media zealously parroted that anonymous superdelegates still planned on voting for Clinton and thus it's over, even though they don't vote for six weeks, and even though she can't win on pledged delegates alone. I'm sorry but if you don't think the timing was deliberate, you're a moron. This was a deliberate effort to discourage low-information voters - and it will work because "I heard Hillary won," full stop.
 
Theodore said:
and even though she can't win on pledged delegates alone
Click to expand...

Not technically true. If she takes 70% of today's votes, she'll have have enough delegates to get the nomination, even without a single super delegate voting for her.

But, I admit, that isn't likely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top