Aa
Question regarding Super Tuesday...
This doesn't have a link as I have a question for you with regards to the Super Tuesday voting. I hope this is ok Barb, I just can't think of any other place to ask.
I have been watching as the votes come in, and most of the process I understand (delegates vs. popular vote, etc.). But it was mentioned that in at least one of the States that voted today, only Romney and Paul were on the ballot? So that means that the people in that State could only vote for them, and not the other two candidates? This confounds me...how does that happen and why would that be? Do they have to purchase a place on the ballot or something?
And my other question...so this primary is to elect the Republican candidate for President...I understand that. So how on earth do Democrats get to vote? I thought you had to be a registered Republican to vote in this, but it was mentioned that Democrats were polled somewhere as they left the ballot box to see who they voted for?
Help...I'm so confused. Thanks so much if anyone could clear this up for me. This is actually quite fascinating, but I don't understand the two issues I asked about. I appreciate it!!
I have been watching as the votes come in, and most of the process I understand (delegates vs. popular vote, etc.). But it was mentioned that in at least one of the States that voted today, only Romney and Paul were on the ballot? So that means that the people in that State could only vote for them, and not the other two candidates? This confounds me...how does that happen and why would that be? Do they have to purchase a place on the ballot or something?
And my other question...so this primary is to elect the Republican candidate for President...I understand that. So how on earth do Democrats get to vote? I thought you had to be a registered Republican to vote in this, but it was mentioned that Democrats were polled somewhere as they left the ballot box to see who they voted for?
Help...I'm so confused. Thanks so much if anyone could clear this up for me. This is actually quite fascinating, but I don't understand the two issues I asked about. I appreciate it!!
Why are we not familiar with brokered conventions??? Because the last one was in 1952 (Democratic convention) and 1948 (Republican convention)!!
If they determine that the party can't support one candidate after one round of voting, they can go to a brokered convention. The first votes, delegates must vote for who was authorized at their state's convention and then after a "few" votes (whatever that means)---- they can vote for whomever they want to. They vote until they get a majority. That is when other candidates can show up (some who have dropped out or even a new person). Ugh.
I guess historically brokered candidates don't win. With so much turmoil over who to pick that doesn't surprise me.
If they determine that the party can't support one candidate after one round of voting, they can go to a brokered convention. The first votes, delegates must vote for who was authorized at their state's convention and then after a "few" votes (whatever that means)---- they can vote for whomever they want to. They vote until they get a majority. That is when other candidates can show up (some who have dropped out or even a new person). Ugh.
I guess historically brokered candidates don't win. With so much turmoil over who to pick that doesn't surprise me.
Hm, I'll have to investigate exactly what they are talking about. There are certain deligate rules in certain states such as------ believe it or not, I had to pick a number one pick and a number two pick on my ballot. They have to have an 'alternative' at the convention. But I need to read up on it!!
The political commentators keep talking about this going "all the way to a brokered convention". Sarah Palin also made a comment that if it goes that far she might consider jumping in. So the convention would be where the final decision is made if no one has enough delegates, right? Who would decide? Sorry, don't meant to drive you crazy with all my questions, it's just a bit confusing. Thanks!
Brokered: set up by people who have the most money and the most to gain, with enough leverage to get their way, possibly buying delegates, etc. Rest assured that it's most likely not ethical, if not illegal.
Thanks Barb, that makes sense. Now I just need to sort out what a brokered convention is, and what it means to the outcome, and I'm all set...lol.
Again, I appreciate you all taking the time to explain some of this to me!
Again, I appreciate you all taking the time to explain some of this to me!
From Wikipedia: "A candidate must accumulate 1,144 delegate votes at the The Republican National Convention to win".
Yes, in FL for the closed primary, you have to be registered for that party, again, in this case, Republican. Democrats can change party affiliation, vote in the primary, then change back before the general election of they want, but most don't think it's worth the hassle. Registered independents can not vote in the primary; you have to be registered to one of the 2 major parties.
Adgal - a candidate has to have a certain amount of delegates to be declared the winner. In this case, I believe the number is 1,144 (that could be wrong; I'll go look it up to verify). So even if Romney has the most delegates, he's not the winner if he doesn't have the required number.
Adgal - a candidate has to have a certain amount of delegates to be declared the winner. In this case, I believe the number is 1,144 (that could be wrong; I'll go look it up to verify). So even if Romney has the most delegates, he's not the winner if he doesn't have the required number.
That is interesting. Had something similar happen here. What I gather is this... they will register with another party and vote for a candidate they think their candidate in their real party can most easily beat. The person I know who did this had no problem with it, and it is legal I guess.
Thanks Barb for letting this stand without a link. I sort of thought it would be ok, but I still appreciate it.
I'm following all of your comments and I think I have to sit back when it's quiet and re read to understand completely. I have to say though, I do again appreciate the info and explanations. I'm still a bit confused, but I am reading this at work and the usual many crisis' are going on, so it's hard to really properly digest..lol.
I gotta say though, this whole primary process has been super fascinating to watch. One last question...so right now Santorum and Romney are the clear front runners. When I was watching last night, it still showed that Romney had a significantly larger amount of delegates. Then they said this may go to another means of picking the candidate (I'm sorry, I can't recall the term they used..). But if Romney has the most delegats, doesn't that mean he won? Or is popular vote that does it. I think your process in that regard is the same as ours here. Our provinces have a number of representatives based on populatioon...so popular vote does not necessarily win the election. Same there right? So is it delegats, popular vote or something else altogether that decides it? Thanks again everyone, I appreciate you helping this Canuck understand.
I'm following all of your comments and I think I have to sit back when it's quiet and re read to understand completely. I have to say though, I do again appreciate the info and explanations. I'm still a bit confused, but I am reading this at work and the usual many crisis' are going on, so it's hard to really properly digest..lol.
I gotta say though, this whole primary process has been super fascinating to watch. One last question...so right now Santorum and Romney are the clear front runners. When I was watching last night, it still showed that Romney had a significantly larger amount of delegates. Then they said this may go to another means of picking the candidate (I'm sorry, I can't recall the term they used..). But if Romney has the most delegats, doesn't that mean he won? Or is popular vote that does it. I think your process in that regard is the same as ours here. Our provinces have a number of representatives based on populatioon...so popular vote does not necessarily win the election. Same there right? So is it delegats, popular vote or something else altogether that decides it? Thanks again everyone, I appreciate you helping this Canuck understand.
Hi barb, do they check which party you are in and what if you are a registered independent? This discussion came up earlier today with a friend of mine. She's a democrat and I'm a republican. She voted as a republican yesterday in our state------- you can get either a dem or rep ballot. She had told me she was going to vote Rep in this primary if she could and she did! (seems unfair----------- but she is not happy with Obama and may vote for a Republican in the next election so wanted in on helping to decide who her choice would be). It's interesting.
In some States, only registered voters of a certain party, in this case Republican, can vote in that primary. This is called a "closed primary"and is what we have in FL, so only Republicans could vote in the Republican primary and Democrats in a Democratic primary, if there were to be one, which there won't be since no Dems are opposing Obama. You must be registered in one of the 2 major parties to vote in primaries, in FL.
BTW - some questions of this type can be allowed, so long as the discussion is discussion, not fighting, bickering, name calling, etc, or the original post is not specifically intended to start an altercation. This one was started as a simple question and we can all benefit from this type of discussion. Thanks to everyone.
BTW - some questions of this type can be allowed, so long as the discussion is discussion, not fighting, bickering, name calling, etc, or the original post is not specifically intended to start an altercation. This one was started as a simple question and we can all benefit from this type of discussion. Thanks to everyone.
Hey, it may have been your vote that did it.
"Do you think that they choose not to 'get it together' at times on purpose?"
I kind of doubt it although it looks strange to me. Santorum didn't even try to get the signatures and that does seem odd. But then he joined the others in a suit filed to get on the ballet.
From Washington Post See: http://tinyurl.com/6pd687h
"...Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) did not submit enough valid signatures, while former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) didn’t try. Gingrich, Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman sued to get on the ballot, but their suit was tossed out by a federal court in January...."
And the others might have gotten some delegates had they competed.
"...According to Virginia Republican Party rules, if Romney wins more than 50 percent of the statewide vote Tuesday, he will win the state’s 10 at-large delegates. The state’s 11 congressional districts are worth three delegates apiece, with the leading vote-getter in each district getting all three delegates. The remaining six delegates are controlled by state and party leaders...."
Mike
"Do you think that they choose not to 'get it together' at times on purpose?"
I kind of doubt it although it looks strange to me. Santorum didn't even try to get the signatures and that does seem odd. But then he joined the others in a suit filed to get on the ballet.
From Washington Post See: http://tinyurl.com/6pd687h
"...Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) did not submit enough valid signatures, while former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.) didn’t try. Gingrich, Santorum, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman sued to get on the ballot, but their suit was tossed out by a federal court in January...."
And the others might have gotten some delegates had they competed.
"...According to Virginia Republican Party rules, if Romney wins more than 50 percent of the statewide vote Tuesday, he will win the state’s 10 at-large delegates. The state’s 11 congressional districts are worth three delegates apiece, with the leading vote-getter in each district getting all three delegates. The remaining six delegates are controlled by state and party leaders...."
Mike
Do you think that they choose not to 'get it together' at times on purpose? I always wonder that------- what motivates these people. They are calculated in many many ways----- it is so hard for me to believe that they'd just 'slip' up and not get on a ballot. could happen though---- lots to organize during a campaign.
What makes it so hard to understand and keep up with is that EACH state has their own rules and system.
I know that the person I voted for won in our state . . . by the hair on his chinny chin chin. I'm am positive it was MY vote that put him over the line. ha ha
What makes it so hard to understand and keep up with is that EACH state has their own rules and system.
I know that the person I voted for won in our state . . . by the hair on his chinny chin chin. I'm am positive it was MY vote that put him over the line. ha ha
I think the failure to get the 10,000 valid voter signatures and at least 400 from each of the eleven congressional districts was burdensome but it could have and would have been accomplished by the other candidates had their campaigns been organized. You'd think Santorum would have known the rules since he has been living in Virginia for years - including those years when he served as a Pennsylvania Senator. Yeah, he had a $100,000 house here which he didn't inhabit though he claimed it as his residence and he had a $750,00 home in Virginia where he and his family actually lived. If Paul could get the signatures in Virginia then I believe the others could have if their campaigns been on the ball. Just my opinion.
Mike
Mike
I think all of this is a direct representation of what we really are as a nation. We've been told all too often that we are a democracy and that every vote counts. (Popular vote, yours and mine...nullified by the electoral college) The U.S. is a Republic.... the 2 major party lines dictate what happens on a national level.
I quit trying to make sense of this debacle and that's the wrong thing to do, but I don't have the energy to waste thinking my vote for a President matters. It doesn't. The college will choose our candidates and our presidents. That is what we need to figure out and correct in this country, but the big money in both parties isn't going to just let that happen.
I quit trying to make sense of this debacle and that's the wrong thing to do, but I don't have the energy to waste thinking my vote for a President matters. It doesn't. The college will choose our candidates and our presidents. That is what we need to figure out and correct in this country, but the big money in both parties isn't going to just let that happen.
Mike, you are good with the data man!.
I would think when they can't get their signatures, they know that they can't win there? Seems like they make all these predictions of how a state will go for some reason. This experience this time around really throws that idea out. People are winning or coming in so close that I never expected to nor did the media.
I would agree that it isn't fair that someone can't be a write in. Do they do that so that no one makes a joke out of it? I remember the govenor race in California where you had a porn star on the ballet. But . . . they did vote in the terminator. But you know what I mean.
I would think when they can't get their signatures, they know that they can't win there? Seems like they make all these predictions of how a state will go for some reason. This experience this time around really throws that idea out. People are winning or coming in so close that I never expected to nor did the media.
I would agree that it isn't fair that someone can't be a write in. Do they do that so that no one makes a joke out of it? I remember the govenor race in California where you had a porn star on the ballet. But . . . they did vote in the terminator. But you know what I mean.
Only Romney and Paul met the requirements to get on the Virginia ballot and write-ins were not permitted so the choice was between those two.
From CNN: See http://tinyurl.com/7lxlthj
"....Our election rules have so burdened potential competitors from being able to mount a national presidential campaign that state governments might as well just tell non-"front-runner" two-party candidates, third parties and independents: "Don't bother."
The courts are not helping. A lower-court decision upheld Virginia's requirement that presidential candidates collect 10,000 valid voter signatures, using only in-state circulators, with at least 400 signatures from each of 11 congressional districts, even as it noted that Virginia's circulator provision was "likely" unconstitutional. Four of five other appellate courts reviewing similar provisions have said so. Both the lower and appellate courts reasoned that regardless of the constitutionality of the Virginia law, the candidates waited too long to challenge the rules.
These courts have now placed the burden on candidates at the outset of mounting a presidential campaign to challenge everything that may be unconstitutional with state ballot access laws, lest any potentially unconstitutional feature should prevent giving candidates access to the ballot....."
Mike
From CNN: See http://tinyurl.com/7lxlthj
"....Our election rules have so burdened potential competitors from being able to mount a national presidential campaign that state governments might as well just tell non-"front-runner" two-party candidates, third parties and independents: "Don't bother."
The courts are not helping. A lower-court decision upheld Virginia's requirement that presidential candidates collect 10,000 valid voter signatures, using only in-state circulators, with at least 400 signatures from each of 11 congressional districts, even as it noted that Virginia's circulator provision was "likely" unconstitutional. Four of five other appellate courts reviewing similar provisions have said so. Both the lower and appellate courts reasoned that regardless of the constitutionality of the Virginia law, the candidates waited too long to challenge the rules.
These courts have now placed the burden on candidates at the outset of mounting a presidential campaign to challenge everything that may be unconstitutional with state ballot access laws, lest any potentially unconstitutional feature should prevent giving candidates access to the ballot....."
Mike
Thanks my friend. I really do find your whole election process quite fascinating and hate it when I don't understand part of it..lol.
Ok, so leaving the name of the ballot - your explanation makes perfect sense to me and I appreciate it. Being able to claim they "didn't lose" is probably a good thing. One of the commentators afterward did mention something about a disorganized campaign being the reason, but I may well have misunderstood. Your explanation makes far more sense.
I really got the impression in these primaries, and some early ones as well that dems were in fact voting in the Republican primary for the Presidential candidate, so unless I completely misunderstood what the commentators were saying, that issue is still a bit confusing to me. (although I totally understand what you are saying about other issues and other election type things). If in fact they are allowed to vote for the Republican candidate, I think that is unfair. I mean, a die hard party member is going to vote for whom they think has the least chance against their candidate right?
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I appreciate it!!
Ok, so leaving the name of the ballot - your explanation makes perfect sense to me and I appreciate it. Being able to claim they "didn't lose" is probably a good thing. One of the commentators afterward did mention something about a disorganized campaign being the reason, but I may well have misunderstood. Your explanation makes far more sense.
I really got the impression in these primaries, and some early ones as well that dems were in fact voting in the Republican primary for the Presidential candidate, so unless I completely misunderstood what the commentators were saying, that issue is still a bit confusing to me. (although I totally understand what you are saying about other issues and other election type things). If in fact they are allowed to vote for the Republican candidate, I think that is unfair. I mean, a die hard party member is going to vote for whom they think has the least chance against their candidate right?
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I appreciate it!!
Slightly off topic, what's interesting to me is how many people of those registered to vote, are voting.
Okay, had my morning tea. I just wanted to say that my above comment was just talking out loud. It isn't a big deal to provide a link---- but was just saying that I hope people who have questions like this can just ask them without having to apologize for it. That's all!
And by the way, I hate that people feel they can't post things without a link.
I think our moderators of med help overall (not just here) don't mind discussions as long as they are respectful. The days of 'big fights' are long over and questions should be allowed without a link.
I think our moderators of med help overall (not just here) don't mind discussions as long as they are respectful. The days of 'big fights' are long over and questions should be allowed without a link.
To your second question, when you go to vote, you just ask for a ballot, Republican or Democratic----- they check no lists as to what you are registerd for. I have no idea what was on the Democratic ballot. So, they were either asking them who they voted for on the Dem ballot or these dudes want to mess with the election and asked for a Rep ballot to pick a candidate. There were other issues on the ballots that were not party issues such as school levies and such. (OURS PASSED!!! Yeah!)
On your first question, I'm not sure. I don't think it costs money but a candidate can choose not to put their name on the ballot or campaign somewhere where they don't feel they have a chance. Then they don't spend time there, money there, and can say "hey, I wasn't on the ballot!" They don't actually "lose" that way. They spend all their time and resources (and publicity ---- in not being a loser) on a state they have a chance of winning. I think.
On your first question, I'm not sure. I don't think it costs money but a candidate can choose not to put their name on the ballot or campaign somewhere where they don't feel they have a chance. Then they don't spend time there, money there, and can say "hey, I wasn't on the ballot!" They don't actually "lose" that way. They spend all their time and resources (and publicity ---- in not being a loser) on a state they have a chance of winning. I think.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
