Shopsmith Forums

One could say the system is flawed with open primaries/caucuses and the first in the nation primary in Iowa is a great example.

Politicians spend 12-18 months blanketing the state with ads and traveling to every part of the state. If you want to meet a potential candidate, they'll probably come to your town.

Republicans votes once, Democrats do one of the most confusing processes that usually hurts the front-runner at that point.

For, democrats, on caucus day everyone gathers at their local polling place where they stand in their candidate preference area or the undecided area. They then spend 30 minutes trying to convince people to vote for their candidate.

They then gather in their candidate area and eliminate those with less than 15%. They then do another 30 minute convincing period, where's usually all the losing candidates tell their supporters to go votes for the number 2 candidate and the results are reported to the media which tend to effect the rest of the voting in future primaries.

Why the democrats do his flawed process, I don't know. Only the most determined voters are going to spend an hour and a half to vote. This is why non-front runners like Jimmy Carter, John Kerry and Obama have won and with the boost moved on to take the nomination.

[quote="dusty"]There is a huge amount of money spent by people who are attempting to influence the outcome of a national election. This should make us all wonder.

I believe that federal elections should have a financial cap]
So I have managed to be silent on here for several months. Have to throw in my two cents on this one. I feel as Dusty does, there should be a financial cap put on all candidates. Whether the money comes from tax payers money or from donations. Each candidate should be allowed the same dollar amount. He who is able to spend his money the wisest may be elected. Also I agree with Dusty that the dollar amount should be quite low. If Dusty and I were running against each other and both received $500.000.00 then it should be up to our campaign manager to spend this amount to our best coverage.
Yea I know this will never happen, but my feelings are this is how it should be. The way elections are ran now it is mostly about who has the deepest treasure chest to draw from. This is just wrong.
Enough said by me, just couldn't keep quite on this.

One problem I see regarding limits on spending in campaigns is that one of the two parties in this country that shall go nameless, but is the one that holds the White House today, has a sympathetic media to trumpet it's policies and denigrate the opposition. So in order to get a fair shake and level the playing field, one needs money to spread the word. It's a shame that the press in the U.S. can't be objective, but until that happens, I wouldn't want any limits on spending.

For some American history, my grandfather, who raised me, went to prison in the 1940's for cutting a man in the back. It was an argument over a crop in the field. The other man was bigger, had my grandpa on the ground, so the old man reached into his pocket and cut the back of the opponent 40 times. The cut shirt was one of the exhibits in the court. The old man served his time in prison. When he got out, he went back to farming, went to church and his only hobby was fox hunting on Saturday nights. He voted when he was moved to do so in the 1950's and 1960's. Just thought I'd share that part of American history.

wiredone wrote:Tell it Swamp Gator! I agree. If a man has served his tiome, he deserves to vote. ONCE per election please!
These days, we need to verify everyone. ESPECIALLY in Florida! Yes this is a stab at all the BUSH family.