Should the USA ban deligates in elections.

[Technosoul]

I do not care if it is how the party set it up or if that was the way the founding fathers did it. The deligates should go bye-bye and let's let the people by popular vote select the Presidents and canidates.

This is our goverment and we want it now. It does not belong to parties or deligates or those bimbos who make up election rules. One rule only. Count all the votes and the guy with the most votes wins.

And to be fair and equal do it all on one day in both the primary and the final election, unless it must be re-done due to a fowl up at the polls.

It is our government, and both the Republican and the Democratic party belongs to the public, not to some special interest group. This is not like buying a car. This is about conducting a fair election that should give power to the people to determine what canidate is best.

Why make it so dam complex when it does not have to be so? The people vote, add up the votes for each canidate, and the person with the most votes gets the job. Simple as simple can be.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Jack Yeah, how dare you voice your opinion of how your elected officials are chosen. You should just take what the power brokers decide is good for you. What, you think you have the freedom of expression or something?

It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It has to do with political parties having the right to run their organizations however the hell they please! The founding fathers never wanted political parties and I would like to see them eliminated but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Besides, the founding fathers never intended for the vast majority of citizens to even have a say in voting for offices like Senator and President. They must have understood what is certainly reality: most Americans are just stupid sheep.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Technosoul I do not care if it is how the party set it up or if that was the way the founding fathers did it. The deligates should go bye-bye and let's let the people by popular vote select the Presidents and canidates.

But the two parties don't like that idea. The rich donors might lose their deposits. Of course, in the crazy world of politics, this may happen far sooner than we'd think. Or it may not happen, who knows? There exists this mentality that the two parties are practically eternal. It's similar to the quasi-religious need to examine "what the founding fathers would do."

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul I do not care if it is how the party set it up or if that was the way the founding fathers did it. The deligates should go bye-bye and let's let the people by popular vote select the Presidents and canidates. This is our goverment and we want it now. It does not belong to parties or deligates or those bimbos who make up election rules. One rule only. Count all the votes and the guy with the most votes wins. And to be fair and equal do it all on one day in both the primary and the final election, unless it must be re-done due to a fowl up at the polls. It is our government, and both the Republican and the Democratic party belongs to the public, not to some special interest group. This is not like buying a car. This is about conducting a fair election that should give power to the people to determine what canidate is best. Why make it so dam complex when it does not have to be so? The people vote, add up the votes for each canidate, and the person with the most votes gets the job. Simple as simple can be.

I am so damned sick and tired of traitors like you stomping all over the Constitution! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE POPULAR VOTE!

As for political parties, they don't belong to the public and membership in them is a privilege granted by the parties. The founding fathers never wanted political parties and I think it would be a good idea to scrap them.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It has to do with political parties having the right to run their organizations however the hell they please!

Actually, there is no contradiction between the two concerns. Essentially, we're discussing how political party organizations impede on freedom of political expression. Because political parties hold power over the entire nation, they shouldn't "run their organizations however the hell they please." If you think they should, then you're basically on the path to dictatorship. To avoid that path, we have a long way to go. However, as Albert Schweitzer said: "Anyone who proposes to do good must not expect people to roll stones
out of his way, but must accept his lot calmly if they even roll a few
more upon it...."

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor I am so damned sick and tired of traitors like you stomping all over the Constitution! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE POPULAR VOTE!

Maybe we should get you a bib. Seriously, your argument hardly even qualifies as one. Do you have a good reason why we shouldn't have the popular vote? How do you excuse the country being run by a bunch of rich, privileged elite party members?

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, there is no contradiction between the two concerns. Essentially, we're discussing how political party organizations impede on freedom of political expression. Because political parties hold power over the entire nation, they shouldn't "run their organizations however the hell they please." If you think they should, then you're basically on the path to dictatorship. To avoid that path, we have a long way to go. However, as Albert Schweitzer said: "Anyone who proposes to do good must not expect people to roll stones out of his way, but must accept his lot calmly if they even roll a few more upon it...." Grandpa h.

I'd like to see the political parties disbanded.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa Maybe we should get you a bib. Seriously, your argument hardly even qualifies as one. Do you have a good reason why we shouldn't have the popular vote? How do you excuse the country being run by a bunch of rich, privileged elite party members? Grandpa h.

The Constitution sets forth how Presidents and Senators are elected and it is not the popular vote. Besides, most Americans are just too damned stupid to be trusted with the vote (the founding fathers seemed to be ahead of their time on that one). For example, those who watched the Kennedy-Nixon debate on television thought Kennedy won but those who heard it on radio thought Nixon won. Ever since then it's been pretty much nothing but a beauty and talent show.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor I'd like to see the political parties disbanded.

Well, you're not going to get that by arguing they should do whatever they want regarding elections. Look at recent political events in Venezuela, for example. They're not too far from what you are arguing.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor The Constitution sets forth how Presidents and Senators are elected and it is not the popular vote. Besides, most Americans are just too damned stupid to be trusted with the vote (the founding fathers seemed to be ahead of their time on that one).

Oh, yes. A bunch of aristocratic slaveowners are so advanced beyond my judgment! What was I thinking?

Again, nothing you have said here is a good reason. There are innumerable things that conflict with the Constitution, including my personal view that all elections and politicians are fraudulent. But your argument would have the convenient effect of shutting me out of the discussion. That might be appropriate in fascist, self-congarulatory circles, but it's not appropriate for a reasoned discourse.

Now, I'm not one to make predictions, but I will say "letting the parties do whatever the hell they want" is a formula for stupidity and dictatorship. That's what authoritarians argue to maintain their systems of rule, and it happens all over the political spectrum.

Here's a question: Why vote for those who would make us leave power in their hands? That's a lousy deal if I've ever heard one.

Grandpa h.