2016 Primaries, Caucuses & Conventions

I'm not really sure what I could have added with any confidence. WRT their feeling about primaries I'm not sure I would disagree with your assessment they wouldn't like them. I'm just not sure.

I did a Google search and found the first primaries weren't until about WW1. Before that there were nominating conventions and obviously a process to select those delegates which I presume was something more like the caucus system or by using elected members or other recognized leaders of the party. Admittedly I'm speculating here.

I think we're getting off topic here.

 

But we can try!

 

Of the primaries, yellow is inferior to both red and blue.

 

I agree, but vital in making the greatest of secondaries, green.

 

Also what is this whole Ted Cruz + women thing going on?

 

really dude? check the last page

also
http://trumpdonald.org/

 

in my defense I have you on ignore and only occasionally press to show me the money

 

stellar defense 10/10
*votes guilty*

 

"A 2-party system severely limits the choice people have in their candidates - and that is a shame when alternatives are available which would avoid that."

Showing information that a multiparty system that is set up tends to favor 2 major parties does not make said system a 2 party system, it just states what it tends towards. Saying something "tends" towards something, then going on to say it "is" that thing is very big piece of disinformation and I know you care about such things. Let me explain, I would include the copy pasted historical proof but it is too easily found and I assume you know them. I also am already sitting on the proof and don't include them so if you wish to disagree with any of posted numbers I can have childish fun posting them to refute you etc along with the date and times of historical events and the housing locations including documents of legal provenance, if you would like to go see them yourself. Lets hope you don't waste our time.

Lets play in the little non communists world based on facts, and lets see one, Fact - its not a two party system

Tending towards something and being something are 2 completely separate things.

You keep showing information it TENDS towards favoring 2 majority parties which is of course often true but is it a two party system ? of course not. Want the proof go read history, Now as you say you are someone who has read the federalist papers I am sure I don't have to inform you of the soon after results and party formation history showing the political landscape and rise and fall of many parties and those parties being of more than 2 at the same time many many many times.

America has multiple different size parties and number of parties including times of 3 and 4 major parties at one time on numerous occasion. So there is no governmental or established rule or system or formation or anything of 2 party SYSTEM it is a multiparty system (what something tends to do, is not what it is, and what something tends to do, is not what it always is, and the Firking fact history shows its not should make it pretty ****in clear its not, unless someone is way too obtuse) so say it with me ? USA is a multiparty system - FACT

Didn't want you stating any misinformation, I know how earlier this month or so you thought America was a democracy and spoke of it as such, surprises me since you read the Federalist Papers that you would speak of America as a democracy so I assume you may not know you are mistaken about this as well.

Protip - multiparty system, go look it up.

(Next up I will get into why it doesn't limit choices, Since you can vote for anyone.)

 

honestly ssez tell me; is it not a first past the post system? or do you deny the problems of FPTP?

you are just trying to derail things away from the actuall issue and mire it in semantics.

 

harmless rhetoric

 

RESURRECTION OF SANDERS: SWEEPS 3 STATES!

 

I am glad they stopped this terrorist plot.

 

We clearly have 5 stark choices for POTUS, even though 2 parties are way stronger than the rest. Trump and Bernie are openly declaring revolution, while Cruz is saying we need to go hardcore to the "right". HRC and Kasich are offering us more of the same quagmire, and one of those 2 is getting millions and millions of votes. Both are beyond boring. One is a criminal. The other is gumming up the works. I cannot remember a time when American citizens had this much choice. And for some reason, the pro choice Dems are still unhappy. Choice it up, says I.

 

So he gets charged, and u are still complaining?

Greater than 8 million citizens have voted for Trump. HRC has received a lot more votes from criminals than Trump, btw. Demographics.

 

I get where you are going, bread water AND crackers? amazing.

but a lot of people want a buffet. and a mixture of things on the plate so everyone has some of what they want.

 

90 days for a terrorist bomb plot?

hahahaha that's good.

 

Ssez and Sokolov and the 2-party system;------take a breath.

I admit I haven't followed your conversation real deeply, but my impression is both of you are stressing different, but related things and are talking past each other. You're both right in the key point you're making.

My thoughts are these FWIW;
1. There is no law or statute that requires us to have a 2-party system, nor do we have a 2-party system per se.
2. Our process generally leads to 2 ***leading*** or primary parties while another party can occasionally become one of the leading parties or be a major player in a given election.

The simple fact is we've had 2 leading parties since about 1800. So to argue our process doesn't lend itself to 2 leading parties runs counter to history. The parties have changed over time. The Federalists, the Antifederalists and the Whigs have all faded into history to be replaced by the Republicans and Democrats. We have a myriad of other parties such as the Greens, the Libertarians etc which people can vote for if they choose.

I recognize there are some differences between a 2-party system and a system that lends itself to 2 leading parties. Are we arguing semantics? The reality is for election ***results***, there is very little difference. For major or statewide partisan races, if you are not in one or the other major party your chances of winning are slim to none. Yes you can vote for someone of a different party, but how are you really impacting the outcome? It's almost as if you didn't vote. That doesn't mean someone from a third party can't win a local election. They do.

Do third parties have an important role in the US? I believe they do, but I think it's different than in other countries. My impression rightly or wrongly is that the 2 main parties here have platforms or ideologies that tend to appeal to a large number of people and do not have what I would call real strong or some would call extremist stands (unless you happen to be someone on the far other side). The smaller parties tend to be more focused on fewer issues, but have stronger, possibly more extreme positions on those issues.

In other countries you often have to form coalitions with other parties to get a governing majority. The problem is that can fall apart quite quickly and you often have to call new elections. I've seen that happen several times from afar. In the US with the 2 leading parties the winner of the election can have a governing majority until the next election.

The important roll they play is to keep the 2 leading parties responsive to the people. If they don't we get either a surging of a third party in an election or one replaces a major political party. We indeed may be seeing in one or both parties being replaced in this decade or so if they don't react properly. The actual replacing of a main party can be quite turbulent.