You call this democracy?

Have you noticed a pattern in the early primaries? They're all in small, mainly rural, more conservative states. The big, more urban, more liberal states all vote later, and thus have less influence. Do you think that's just a coincidence? (If you do, call me-- I have some swamp land I want to sell you). This is just one way in which the American political system deliberately overrepresents small, rural, conservative states, and intentionally underrepresents large, urban, liberal states. The game is rigged and fixed in a thousand different ways. It's all just a circus to distract and entertain you, and make you think you're free (the better to enslave you). Meanwhile, the real decisions, the important decisions, are all made behind closed doors, without public participation or even knowledge.

The arcane process of state by state primaries and caucuses, which most Americans know little about and only dimly understand, is designed to skew the results way to the right. Iowa starts it off with caucuses-- a very undemocratic procedure in which the percentage of public participation is very low (lower than primaries), and where there is no secret ballot, making caucus attendees subject to arm-twisting and manipulation. New Hampshire follows with the first primary. Coming up February 3 are seven more states. Here's a state by state breakdown of the nine early (and thus most influential) states:

Iowa: rural, backward Midwestern state
New Hampshire: rural, conservative, New England state
Delaware: rural, conservative, essentially a private fiefdom of the DuPont family
South Carolina: virulently racist, backward, still flies the Confederate flag
Missouri: mainly rural and conservative, but does have two large urban areas: St. Louis and Kansas City. The main crossroads state for interstate travel and commerce.
Oklahoma: yee-hah! Rural, conservative, mostly wanna be Texans.
New Mexico: rural, mainly Latinos, viciously oppressed by the dominant Anglos
Arizona: does have a very large metropolitan area (Phoenix), but mostly very rural and very conservative. Some Mormon influence.
North Dakota: frigid cowboy wasteland

Of the ten states with the largest populations, the first one to vote is Michigan on February 7.

Do you detect a certain pattern here?

The U.S. political system is a phony, rigged game. We should accept nothing less than true, full, and genuine democracy.

I know you are a complete fucking imbecile, but i'll try anyway.... has it occured to you that most of the country is rural and conservative?

BTW, did you get a job yet Steve? I mean, I don't know about Las Vegas, but here in Texas when a man as old as you doesn't work for months at a time, he's considered a fucking bum....

Originally posted by WARMACHINE
I know you are a complete fucking imbecile, but i'll try anyway.... has it occured to you that most of the country is rural and conservative?

Click to expand...

Good point. But, as you well know WarMachine, making good points to REDWAVE are a waste of time.

Most?

Now that's a tricky statement. Yes, most of the country is rural and conservative: that is, most of its geographic area. In terms of population, however, it's very different. Most Americans live in urban areas. And in the last election, more people voted for Gore or Nader than for Bush.

catfish11 said:

Good point. But, as you well know WarMachine, making good points to REDWAVE are a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Reality is a fucking bitch for some people....

Last I heard, the United States is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.

So, wouldn't it make sense to vote for a Republican?

Cry me a river. Can't states change their primary dates to any time they want? So would it be more fair if the ignorant, welfare supported, urban areas, choose the candidates? Why did I even post, I know I just wasted a minute of my life.

Re: Most?

Originally posted by REDWAVE
And in the last election, more people voted for Gore or Nader than for Bush.

Click to expand...

Yes, Gore and Nader combined. Also, Gore received slightly more of the popular vote. However, the US puts more importance on the Electoral College vote, which Bush won. Please stop whining about the 2000 election, it's over, Bush won, now go vote to change it if you want to but stop whining like a little bitch.

simplicity is often the best way to go

The process must become simplified and direct-- whenever stuff gets this complicated and convoluted it can only result in deception. I suggest we do a simple, straight-forward process: Let people vote confidentially for who they want to elect as candidates, then let them vote again for who they choose as the best person for the job out of those candidates, etc. Each time, the votes would be counted, and the people with the most votes would win. None of this other crap. Direct from the people to the results of the voting. No in-between processes need to be involved. It's so simple. The only reason it doesn't happen (in my opinion) is that it's much easier to manipulate the system when you complicate it.

Xtaabay

Re: simplicity is often the best way to go

Originally posted by Xtaabay
The process must become simplified and direct-- whenever stuff gets this complicated and convoluted it can only result in deception. I suggest we do a simple, straight-forward process: Let people vote confidentially for who they want to elect as candidates, then let them vote again for who they choose as the best person for the job out of those candidates, etc. Each time, the votes would be counted, and the people with the most votes would win. None of this other crap. Direct from the people to the results of the voting. No in-between processes need to be involved. It's so simple. The only reason it doesn't happen (in my opinion) is that it's much easier to manipulate the system when you complicate it.

Xtaabay

Click to expand...

Are you referring only to the primary process or the general election?

It's funny how a process designed to make sure all Americans have an equal say in who gets into office is "not democratic" simply because it evens things at the expense of liberal urban centers.

Re: Re: simplicity is often the best way to go

catfish11 said:

Are you referring only to the primary process or the general election?

Click to expand...

All of it. I think our whole system needs an overhaul

Xtaabay

Re: Re: Re: simplicity is often the best way to go

Originally posted by Xtaabay
All of it. I think our whole system needs an overhaul

Xtaabay

Click to expand...

Won't argue with the primary process. I find it unfair across the board. However, I have to agree with the founding fathers on the presidential election not being decided by the popular vote. Their fear was that the states with large populations would elect the president, marginalizing the small states. The Electoral College vote acts as a counter balance to the voting power of the high population states.
This issue did not come to the forefront until after the election in 2000....raised, of course, by the supporters of Al Gore. I am sure that had it been the other way around, there would be a clammoring by republicans to change the system.

zipman7 said:

It's funny how a process designed to make sure all Americans have an equal say in who gets into office is "not democratic" simply because it evens things at the expense of liberal urban centers.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's set up this way so that small states get some say.

Also, it's set up so that some attention is paid to small states, both by the ones actually running and by the press who are covering the caucuses and primaries.

Uneven

zipman7 said:

It's funny how a process designed to make sure all Americans have an equal say in who gets into office is "not democratic" simply because it evens things at the expense of liberal urban centers.

Click to expand...

My point was exactly that it's designed to make sure that all Americans do NOT have an equal say. In effect, the majority of the population is disenfranchised, and a tiny minority manipulates the process to its advantage.

Re: Uneven

REDWAVE said:

My point was exactly that it's designed to make sure that all Americans do NOT have an equal say. In effect, the majority of the population is disenfranchised, and a tiny minority manipulates the process to its advantage.

Click to expand...

And you're wrong.

Why shouldn't the majority of the country have a say in things?

The same exact thing happens on a state level in new york during elections.

Governors know that NYC is not the whole state, and the whole state needs to be spoken for. Pataki won because he addressed the needs of the entire state, not just NYC where the high concentrations of voters are.

By giving smaller states an important part in the process, more of the country is represented in the process and not just the large, liberal urban areas that you would prefer.

The process embraces the spirit of democracy by leveling the playing field.

Re: Uneven

REDWAVE said:

In effect, the majority of the population is disenfranchised, and a tiny minority manipulates the process to its advantage.

Click to expand...

RED RED RED.

The day that you speak for the majority of America is the day that I move to Australia.

Start packin'!

RawHumor said:

RED RED RED.

The day that you speak for the majority of America is the day that I move to Australia.

Click to expand...

That day may be coming very soon.

Already, 9 out of 10 people hate Bush-- and that's a good start.

Re: Start packin'!

REDWAVE said:

That day may be coming very soon.

Already, 9 out of 10 people hate Bush-- and that's a good start.

Click to expand...

Wow. Was that poll taken in Denmark or in Hillary's garage?

How so?

zipman7 said:

And you're wrong.

Why shouldn't the majority of the country have a say in things?

The same exact thing happens on a state level in new york during elections.

Governors know that NYC is not the whole state, and the whole state needs to be spoken for. Pataki won because he addressed the needs of the entire state, not just NYC where the high concentrations of voters are.

By giving smaller states an important part in the process, more of the country is represented in the process and not just the large, liberal urban areas that you would prefer.

The process embraces the spirit of democracy by leveling the playing field.

Click to expand...

How does deliberately overrepresenting small, rural, conservative states, and intentionally underrepresenting large, urban, liberal states level the playing field? This I wanna hear!

Re: Re: Start packin'!

RawHumor said:

Wow. Was that poll taken in Denmark or in Hillary's garage?

Click to expand...

In Hillary's bedroom. She gives a lousy blowjob, though-- she bites it more than she sucks it!

Re: Re: Re: Start packin'!

REDWAVE said:

In Hillary's bedroom. She gives a lousy blowjob, though-- she bites it more than she sucks it!

Click to expand...

That's not surprising, and could very well be the reason that Bill so frequently got his head elsewhere.

She's probably more skilled at giving penile-less head. Actually, she's probably better at receiving than she is at giving.

What were we talking about?

Oh yeah, what's your solution?

Should we hold early primaries in CA and NY and then have those states be the only ones that matter?

Good question

RawHumor said:

That's not surprising, and could very well be the reason that Bill so frequently got his head elsewhere.

She's probably more skilled at giving penile-less head. Actually, she's probably better at receiving than she is at giving.

What were we talking about?

Oh yeah, what's your solution?

Should we hold early primaries in CA and NY and then have those states be the only ones that matter?

Click to expand...

No, I think a fairer system would be a nationwide primary, with a runoff between the top two if no one gets more than 50% the first time. That would give voters in all 50 states equal weight.

Re: How so?

REDWAVE said:

How does deliberately overrepresenting small, rural, conservative states, and intentionally underrepresenting large, urban, liberal states level the playing field? This I wanna hear!

Click to expand...

You seem to forget that the small, rural conservative states make up the MAJORITY of this country.

What the process does is make sure that a few large cities do not totally control who runs in elections.

If that were the case, then all those politicians would simply ignore the majority of the country for those population clusters.

The needs of the people who live in rural Iowa are just as important as the needs of new york city and should be represented.

Re: Re: How so?

zipman7 said:

If that were the case, then all those politicians would simply ignore the majority of the country for those population clusters.

The needs of the people who live in rural Iowa are just as important as the needs of new york city and should be represented.

Click to expand...

But shouldn't NYC and LA decide all elections? That's what RED seems to think...