quote:

---

Originally written by Excalibur:

My dad's actually one of the delegates.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Jumpin Salmon:

Maybe someday we can move away from a system of primary elections that favor party over participation.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

You've really never tried to convince your friends to do something you want them to do, like go out to see a movie together? That's politics; the only difference between that and what the president does is the scale.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

And how hard did you have to look to find a definition of the word politics without the word 'government' in it? Or would you consider a group of friends a kind of government as well, Mr. Broad-Definitions?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Jumpin Salmon:

Maybe someday we can move away from a system of primary elections that favor party over participation.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

I wouldn't say that's true. Plenty of people go through life without ever voting or even having a political opinion. The United States suffers chronically from people like this.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

It's not so much apathy as a feeling that there isn't a real choice, and if there was, you're vote wouldn't matter...

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Lt. Sullust :

I suspect this will become even more visible once the democratic nominee is chosen. The supporters of the other candidate will feel cheated, and may not vote in November as a result...

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

It's actually not uncommon to see definitions of political systems that are intentionally so broad that they apply to families, corporations, etc

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:

---

Originally written by madrigan:

I'd say that the American political system is very different from the "politics" of a family or a corporation purely because the scale is far, far greater, and because the United States is a democracy. Families and corporations are not democracies. I see how all of these could fall under a very broad definition, but very broad definitions tend not to define, and are therefore not very useful.

---

Okay, since you're such a stickler for narrow definitions, give us a simple, non-arbitrary definition of "democracy" that includes the United States but excludes the Microsoft Corporation. I'm honestly not convinced that one exists.

(And don't bother talking about voting; in the scheme of things, voting is only a minor, peripheral element of the political process. The results you get by holding elections aren't all that different than the results you'd get in a dictatorship with the same power relations between individuals and groups -- unless of course those power relations are such that the development of a voting system becomes inevitable, in which case voting would be an effect of the political state of affairs, not a cause. Overlaying a voting system onto a given political milieu will not in itself make it any more or less democratic than it was before.)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by madrigan:

All large democratic systems have political parties, because people naturally organize themselves to work towards a common goal -- even if that goal is fairly ambiguous as in the case of our very large parties in the U.S. Each party needs to choose a candidate, therefore, there will be a primary system. If we didn't have the parties, we could have dozens or hundreds of candidates for president, each with a tiny constituency. No candidate could receive enough votes to confer legitimacy. But that would never happen anyway unless we banned parties, which of course would be a bad idea.

I would change the system, though. The current primary system is incredibly unfair and inefficient. People in every state should vote on the same day, or days, in April or May. You count the votes and there's your nominee.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Jumpin Salmon:

quote:

---

Originally written by madrigan:

All large democratic systems have political parties, because people naturally organize themselves to work towards a common goal -- even if that goal is fairly ambiguous as in the case of our very large parties in the U.S. Each party needs to choose a candidate, therefore, there will be a primary system. If we didn't have the parties, we could have dozens or hundreds of candidates for president, each with a tiny constituency. No candidate could receive enough votes to confer legitimacy. But that would never happen anyway unless we banned parties, which of course would be a bad idea.

I would change the system, though. The current primary system is incredibly unfair and inefficient. People in every state should vote on the same day, or days, in April or May. You count the votes and there's your nominee.

---

Who is talking about banning parties? All I want to see is the primary system changed so that we have the option in the general election to vote for the best candidate for the job. The current system elects a polarized candidate. You say a lot of stuff about things, but the effect is lost on me, sorry.

---