ForumGarden

In 1972, George McGovern was the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, and ran unsuccessfully against Richard Nixon. He did not win one single state caucus, and yet was his party's nominee.

So, doesn't it make you wonder what the point is of spending gazillions of $$$$ on these primaries when apparently Party Heads have already made up their minds. I can see Hilary not winning any primaries save a couple, and yet I'll bet she is the nominee. Remember, you heard it here first.

Far fetched I know but say Hillary (what a stupid name anyway) gets the nod. Wouldnt it be great if Obama got the write in vote ?

That would renew my faith in democracy.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding that the point of the party caucus and the electoral colleges was to prevent perceived danger of a populist candidate being elected to the presidency in the first place.

gmc;754269 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding that the point of the party caucus and the electoral colleges was to prevent perceived danger of a populist candidate being elected to the presidency in the first place.
Possibly. I'll have to research.



I fail to see the danger of a populist candidate. Okay, if we went to internet voting a la American Idol, I could see us voting in Hilary Duff, never mind Hilary Clinton, but we would get what we collectively deserve.

I can see the populist vote danger now. New York & California could dominate the process and could conceivably leave less populated states' interests under- or unrepresented.



SOURCE LINK

The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option. There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.



On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess the desires of the people of their states and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress than the actual will of the people.

As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Electoral College Summary


Votes cast by the people of the United States -- known as the "popular vote" -- are used to choose the president and vice president "indirectly" through the Electoral College.

Popular votes cast in the presidential election are actually being cast for a number of electors. Each state gets a number of electors equal to the state's number of representatives in the House and Senate.

There are a total of 538 electors.

The candidate winning the most popular votes in a state gets all of that states electoral votes.

The first candidate to win 270 or more electoral votes is elected.It is possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote and still be elected president by the Electoral College. Four presidents have been elected in this manner: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and George W. Bush in 2000.

We've got no cause to be smug in the UK. TB and his cronies were re-elected despite the fact the vast majority of the voters didn't vote for them. Nobody voted for GB as PM and TB rigged the labour party so ordinary members get no real say-one of the reasons labour party membership is in freefall.

One advantage of not having a written constitution is at least we are not hidebound by one and can change things.

I see Ralph Nader has decided not to participate this time.

Some states do not permit voting on the "independant" ticket. That's not fair.



Just like alot of couples who spend alot more attention and money on their wedding rather than the actual marriage. Candidates spend alot more attention and money on the campaign, than the actual responsibilities of the presidential office. IMO

along-for-the-ride;754586 wrote: I see Ralph Nader has decided not to participate this time.

Some states do not permit voting on the "independant" ticket. That's not fair.



Just like alot of couples who spend alot more attention and money on their wedding rather than the actual marriage. Candidates spend alot more attention and money on the campaign, than the actual responsibilities of the presidential office. IMO


I thought anyone could stand to be president of the united states?

gmc;754672 wrote: I thought anyone could stand to be president of the united states?
I think there may be confusion between the election and the party primary. In an election, one may vote for whomever he chooses, even if that name isn't listed. Just write the name in.

Caucus, cactus, cucumbers.....what good is any of it Lon ?

Nomad;774308 wrote: Caucus, cactus, cucumbers.....what good is any of it Lon ?


Caucus, cactus, cucumbers & Confusion.

Lon;774328 wrote: Caucus, cactus, cucumbers & Confusion.




You know that reminds me of something from my childhood. I couldnt have been more than 3 or 4 when I wandered down the alley behind our house.

In one of our neighbors drives was a fairly large puddle so I took my clothes off and jumped in the puddle.

The owner of the house came out and removed me from the premises and walked me home handing me over to my parents.

So many of my childhood memories are stirred because of some post you have made.