| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Poll majority says likely to vote for Clinton; Hillary Clinton that is... | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 27 2005, 01:56 PM (910 Views) | |
| Swidden | May 27 2005, 08:02 PM Post #31 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Not going to happen any time in the forseeable future. It conflicts very much with our concept of one person, one vote. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | May 27 2005, 08:12 PM Post #32 |
|
Admiral
|
Whats wrong with one person, two votes - provided everyone gets the same number? For instance in Scotland for the Parliament there you vote as normal for a representative in your constiuency. The Candidate with the most votes wins. You then get another vote for a regional representative. In the regions several candidates are elected, how many from each party depends on the share of the votes. The result is a legislature which much more closely resembles the share of the vote for each party. Nevertheless a PR system isnt a requirement of three or multi-party politics. There are 11 parties represented in the House of Commons under a first past the post system with 1 independent. Having that kind of system keeps the two big parties on their toes and forces them to listen more to the electorate because they cannot take votes for granted. When the Conservatives were at their worst they lost seats to the Liberals in the south, when Labour ignored their grass roots over Iraq they losts seats in their heartlands. When the people of Scotland felt ignored they voted for Scottish Nationalists and the main parties responded by giving them their own Parliament. I'm sure if more than two parties could develop in the US it would help keep the main two sharper. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | May 27 2005, 08:28 PM Post #33 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
That's sums up her experience pretty well. She has pretty much the same resume (and experience) as John Edwards. Governors usually make far better Presidents than Senators because they have experience in dealing with a state government that is set up much the same way that the federal government is. Senators often haven't directed much more than their personal paid staff - certainly not federal agencies. Of course, it's really hard to say since it's been a long time since a Senator was elected President. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 27 2005, 09:45 PM Post #34 |
|
Admiral
|
Noah, Well, I did write 'almost anyone.'
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | May 28 2005, 01:03 AM Post #35 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Simple. Ideally you think long and hard about who best deserves your support. Who best truly represents you then you put your support behind that candidate. If you are really concerned that the candidate you prefer can't win, then at least have the courage to vote for the person you think has the best chance at defeating the person you dislike more. The system you are describing essentially should give the lesser of two evils the win anyway, why waste one's time and effort (as little as it may be to mark a card or flip a switch) with a "just in case" vote? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| fireh8er | May 28 2005, 03:12 AM Post #36 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
No, I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Things haven't gotten that bad? Have they...?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | May 28 2005, 05:10 AM Post #37 |
|
Admiral
|
Under the system I discribed you do have an opportunity to vote for the candidate you want (and not to effectively waste your vote) - even if normally they wouldnt be able to win - because they have a much greater chance of picking up a regional proportional seat. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| who | May 28 2005, 06:46 AM Post #38 |
|
Have light saber. Will travel.
|
From the poll here, most would not vote for her. I would like to see Rice elected. My preference would be Rice, a Senate with over 60 republicans, and a House that is democratic. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | May 28 2005, 08:01 AM Post #39 |
|
psyfi
|
I would love to see a Rice vs. Clinton match. I don't think Hill would have a snowball's chance in that oh so eternally hot place. It will be many decades before you see a Democratic House again. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 28 2005, 09:12 AM Post #40 |
|
Admiral
|
I would like to see an Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Elizabeth I match. That way, I couldn't lose.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Darthsith | May 28 2005, 09:25 AM Post #41 |
|
Ensign
|
Well if it isn't "Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Fesarius" or "Fesarius vs. Elizabeth I" of course you couldnt lose. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 28 2005, 09:44 AM Post #42 |
|
Admiral
|
It was obviously a hypothetical. Both were IMO great women.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| fireh8er | May 28 2005, 01:12 PM Post #43 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
Weren't they on MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch?
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| fireh8er | May 28 2005, 01:14 PM Post #44 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
Put five dollars on Eleanor Roosevelt in the third round!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | May 28 2005, 01:47 PM Post #45 |
|
Admiral
|
CSB, LOL! I'll put $20 on Elizabeth I in the fifth.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


2:06 PM Jul 11