2004 elections

jank · 20-03-2003 3:29pm #1

well the war has started and bush is as popular as ever cause of it at home which begs the question will this war get him re-elected in 2004!!

http://www.scottpolls.com/election2004.html

below are the results of polls cariied out to see what democratic nominatin would stand the better chance against bush

46% Bush
31% Daschle
10% Some other candidate
13% Not sure

45% Bush
31% Kerry
9% Some other candidate
15% Not sure

47% Bush
32% Lieberman
10% Some other candidate
11% Not sure

43% Bush
31% Edwards
9% Some other candidate
16% Not sure

45% Bush
27% Dean
11% Some other candidate
18% Not sure

well as it stands yes but theres another 16 months or so to these elections

however i think that the economy will be the decideing factor in all this. Bear in mind that a president was never re-elected when the US economy was in recesion (tell that to bush snr )

as clinton says "its the economy stupid"

me think that any democrat is better than bush but there is no one person that can stand out however they do have one i think un beatable ace in their pack

rudi giuliani

but i dont think he wants to run at least until 2008!!
the world might be destroyed by then sure by bush and his hawks

fisty · 20-03-2003 3:51pm

Didn't Giuliani quit polotics because of medical problems?

BattleBoar · 20-03-2003 3:52pm

Rudy Giuliani is a republican, not a democrat. :rolleyes:

Bateman · 20-03-2003 4:40pm

If the American people can manage to grasp the opportunist nature of the war (ie getting away from thorny domestic issues), then a Democrat campaigning on solid issues such as employment may receive backing, but "its homeland security, stupid" seems to be the order of the day.

dahamsta · 20-03-2003 6:01pm

I thought Daschle had decided not to stand?

adam

roadweighed · 27-03-2003 2:05pm

It is amazing how long we Americans let poor systems linger, even when we're confronted with obvious failure. Our last national election was an embarrassment in many ways, a clear demonstration of a voting system that can't even correctly tabulate an already inherently flawed voting design. That entire charade made evident the breakdown of a mixed up democratic pogrom for everybody to see, the whole substance of which is an accurate representation geared towards serving the basic need for the American public to vote. We can't even get off the voting ground floor correctly before getting into a functional and healthy decision making motion. For whatever reason, the ratio of leadership to concerned public that should feel adequately represented by voter choice is not balanced, it has become an inaccurate reflection of the coordinated relationship between the needs and concerns of citizenry, and the concerns and motions of elected officers. The connection is lost. The existing design has transformed America. By offering nothing more the nation has lost its chance to achieve a political diversity, a dangerous crossroads within our democracy that can lack the necessary dissenting and questioning voices in key areas, especially when confronted with the hottest issues such as war, economy, crime, and how to approach the interpretation of the American Constitution.

The time the public has been wasting on primary activity between the two parties should be utilized for all viable candidates gathering signatures state by state in order to get on a state's national election list. Democrat and Republican primaries should be a thing of the past. Americans should have the right to choose within an open election. The national election for the presidency should in no way be influenced by the pulling power of minor states. Those little venues shouldn't be designated to weed out candidates and narrow our options at choice as a voting public. Make the national election for president even across every state. Hold it on a Saturday.

When a party offers a slough of candidates, then clearly that might weaken the chances of that party winning an election. But that problem (offering several candidates come election day) is their business; it's for that party to figure out. The system shouldn't be pre-designed to meet the needs of just democrats and republicans; rather the whole voting format should be designed around the needs of U.S. citizens and their ability to choose from a wide-range of candidates, whatever affiliation may be of voters. The two party structure as it relates to true democracy should never be a barrier to real choice, nor should the system make clear allowances in basic design to enable the endless promotion of a two party democracy that is easily compromised by corporate and special interests, which need only supply hand-outs to both democrats and republicans, and then reap the rewards of that select spamming later on. Open up the democratic forum. Simplify it and make it basic to the needs of all citizens and then make sense of it all after the public has spoken on Election Day. As it stands, the two parties have stymied the whole principle of the democratic, and what democratic systems should do on fundamental levels, which is to offer the public a substantial level of voter choice. Our democratic system should in principle ensure that a number of candidates remain available up to election day, and then ensure that elections are kept fast, clean, and voter effective. A real democracy doesn't just aim at filling a singular party position, to offer a couple of middle of the road platforms, to dance around an assortment of hot topics come close to election, and then divide the country down the middle come November. None of that type of political activity is voter friendly. That whole process infers an inherent democratic design flaw in system as well as advertising the current status and break down of what should be in effect a real democracy. Real democracy is designed to allow maximum levels of choice to a maximum level of voters. We've basically narrowed the choices to nothing and nothing, and then expect people to keep showing up at the polls year after year. When 40% of registered voters show up come Election Day, that apathy should be no mystery. We are generally voting on candidates who have little diversity. Our vote becomes marginal in meaning. The dance between republicans and democrats is played out, it's a stale relationship that Corporate America can twist, turn, and manipulate at many stages during an election campaign. Two party formats are ideal for corporate and special interests, yet they undermine the whole health of a function voting system not only in theory but in the most basic democratic applications. America needs to get it right before the whole confidence of the voting public is lost.

If a political candidate gathers enough signatures within a given state, his or her name goes on the ballot for that upcoming national election, and they go the distance. It's that simple. Candidates might have only enough available cash to get however thousands of votes it will take to gather signatures in order to meet whatever total that state may require to get listed as a candidate. But if a candidate puts the effort into gathering signatures, as citizens they should be ensured the right to get listed in that state. It spreads out the campaigning field and strategy of each candidate thereby allowing great flexibility to campaign more available area early on rather than confining all viable candidates to a narrow string of select states out of the primary gate, states that are in no way an accurate reflection of Modern America. A date should be listed when all signatures are collected, tabulated, verified by whatever means, and then closed. The top twenty candidates with the most signatures per state qualify for that state's ballot. Once the list is complete, the next stage of the campaign is ready. All listed names have an obligation to play it out once they've crossed that threshold, no matter how much time, effort, and cash they put into their own campaign. Their name is fixed on the ballot once they submit their signature paperwork; their name is removed with all other names once the elections are over. If candidates self-destruct mid-stride and if the political scene gets too dirty their liking, that's the risk they took, that's the name of the American political game.

Similar to a long day at Belmont Park, the real race begins once the starter introduces the field, (the day when all signatures are submitted and reviewed), and everybody has an ample chance to view the racing form and racing program, to look at the horses at the paddock, and then clearly look at the winner's circle when it's all over late on a Saturday evening in November. Nobody concedes. They run the length of the track even if candidates run out of cash. When the polls close, the election is over and the results are final. As a voter, if you are absent on a Saturday, you forfeit your right to vote. If you're on vacation, then you're on vacation. If you're unable to get to a poll near your residence on a weekend day, and can't do so within a 12 hour window, then you had ample opportunity to get down there. Disabled voters should notify election officials before Election Day, and a mobile unit should be assigned to meet with them on that day. The value of absentee voting as it currently stands is questionable.

Make it easy at the polls, and keep tracking the tally easy over the course of the day. Once finished, a voter submits his completed slip to poll officials, the slip is fed into the computer, a copy slip is instantly generated showing your voting activity for your record, and the voting process is done. With that piece of paper in hand, voters are confident that their vote has been instantly tabulated; their voice has been heard. They can go home and track minute-to-minute activity of the election via television or internet which can show all current voter up to the second activity throughout the country. Election officials and the American Public should be able to monitor election results every minute of that day, not be given percentages of counted votes. Poll results should travel into main computer networks and counted as an official vote as fast as running through a lottery ticket at the local store. The technology to get up to speed with our elections has been available for years, to delay the process as we know it would be a further sign of political lethargy, promoting public apathy, and declaring the two party stranglehold as acceptable to the American voting public. It's nothing short of denial of what we should be doing as a democracy in system, process, and technology.

Throw the Electoral College in the trash; the presidency is a national election for those citizens who choose to register and vote, not some strange looking state-to-state tally election. The Electoral College isn't a safeguard to anything, its only value is to skew a popular election, and then allow room for politicians to offer rhetorical crap as it relates to real election results. Take it out of the mix in order to clarify elections. The candidate with the most popular votes wins. If you are registered to vote in Texas, then your vote will have as much meaning in relative time and candidacy scope as a vote that is cast in Delaware, or Iowa.

[mod edit] Changed text font to something more readable [/mod edit]