in a rational US the '08 election would be
Dodd vs Huckabee
in practise Huckabee's name is not presidential enough, I am told
and Dodd's hair is not presidential enough, or so I am told - not that presidential hair may be too pretty either... if you're a democrat
y'all have a real funny way to do these things,
I still haven't figured out why party primaries are run as a state event, nor why some rules allow non-party members to vote for party candidates - unless it is some interesting exercise in seeing if people understand game theory
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Voting is not party involvement.
We hear a lot of talk these days about "voters" being repressed in their attempt to be involved in the Democratic primary process. There may be something to that, and it might be nice to make it easier for people to wake up on some (usually) Tuesday morning and go…
Donald Trump is now the presumed Republican candidate for President of the United States. Prior to Cruz and Kasich dropping out of the race, it was not 100% clear that Trump would achieve enough delegates to "lock" the convention, but he was vey close. I am not sure if Trump will be the only…
I've described how the Iowa caucus voting procedure is a ridiculous way to decide how might be the next president, but Iowa's and New Hampshire's insistence on being the first states might have cost the Democrats Florida. Here's what the Democrats did:
Fearing likely attempts by big states like…
Donald Trump is the president elect of the United States. Why?
Trump did not win because he is widely liked. He is NOT widely liked.
A very small number of Americans voted for Trump, and this number was magnified by the conservative-state-favoring electoral college, and most of those who did not…
Vote Paul/Kucinich in 2008!
>I still haven't figured out [...] why some rules allow non-party members to vote for party candidates[...]
How long before the primary do you think voters should have to declare their party allegiance, and how often do you think voters should be allowed to switch allegiances?
I take your point about game theory, but I have a hard time believing that it could be good for democracy to require voters to maintain their declared allegiances in the face of possibly changing circumstances. Do you want only steadfast people who infrequently change their minds to be allowed to vote in the primaries? Also: both of the main parties want swing voters in the general election, and voting in a primary might create a sense of investment in that party. I can't figure out why so many states have closed primaries!
But much more importantly: Since Santorini, I keep hoping for more great extrasolar planet blogging. Any exoplanet commentary on the horizon?
Yes, my vague understanding of US primaries seems to be very gamable; eg. a democrat supporter , in a state thats 50-50 dem-rep, joins the republicans in order to sabotage the republican candidate, so that more people vote democrat in the general election.
It would probably cost the supporter their choice in the primaries; but if they didn't care which democrat was the candidate, it could be worth it.
One alternative is methods that combine the primary and main votes, such as the Single Transferable Vote here in Ireland. A single list of all candidates, which you list in order. Hence, if the choice comes down to someone from party X, then all those affected, not just party X's supporters, get to decide.
There will be a COROT news conference in a few weeks--it is told that the scientists have yet not decided how much they should reveal. Hopefully that is due to a large number of planets instead of paucity of solid detections.