Would you agree that the current United States system of presidential primaries is undemocratic?

rite now the candidates suck! Obomma is communist, Mc Cain is just bad, and Hillary is horrible! hillary needs to drop out or drop dead in my opinion

So you only listed three candidates that you have opinions about. There are, however, more people running. Do you believe that it is unreasonable that the media has chosen that these three candidates are the only ones who ever get noticed by the public?
Also, the candidates with more money get more air time. Is that fair?

She listed those three because they simply are the most popular as we speak. More people are voting for them, they have more money meaning they have more TV Ads. And some of them we already have heard of (like Hillary.) I'm not quite sure it's undemocratic.
Though the issues about those with more money getting more air time... who is going to pay for it? They get their money from donators, and those who support them. So, the more people that support them (or the more rich people... >_> like Oprah supporting Obama, that REALLY has to help) provide their campaign money which they place on TV ads.
It's in our way of economic life that the rich person has better things that the poorer. In our type of economic system there is always going to be poor and rich, so, isn't it natural that the one with the most money gets the most advertising?
Though, I'm not worried about this. Smart voters and smart Americans should not only judge who they vote on based on how many commercials they see nor what the commercials say. Research should be conducted, am I right?

But how many voters actually research the candidates before the vote? I would guess very few.
Also, in a caucus, only the wealthy people who can get off work and get transportation to the caucus can even have a say in who gets elected. That seems very unfair, because poor people have opinions too, but they can not risk loosing their job just to have a vote, provided they can even afford transportation. So are caucuses undemocratic, since not everyone has a vote?

democracy is an illusion. Don't ever buy into it.

but yeah, all of the candidates are crap, I wouldn't be too chuffed if... sometime when they were.. I dunno, all together, and someone just went crazy on them with some automatic weapons or something.. I dunno.

Not that I want them dead, I just don't want any of them for president. It makes it frustrating as hell to deal with this election.

Originally Posted by javachipster

rite now the candidates suck! Obomma is communist, Mc Cain is just bad, and Hillary is horrible! hillary needs to drop out or drop dead in my opinion

No offense but you give no reasoning behind why you hate these people. With no proof behind your statement they are only angry words. They really mean nothing.

Why is Obamma a communist? Why is McCain just bad? Why should Hillary drop dead?

Hatred without reasoning behind it solves nothing and only serves to produce more hatred without reason.



Anyway, on topic:

I only have one problem with primaries. At least were I am, I'm not sure if its how the rest of the country works, you have to declare a party. If you say your democrat you cant vote on anything republican and vis versa. I kinda want a say on all sides of things. I'm not a mindless idiot that only sees there own party members. I can see all sides and I want a say in them.


As for the money thing:

Yes. Candidates with more cash get more air time. Thats just how things are. Thats why we've never had a poor president. They have always (except a select few but those were only because the big men wanted someone they could control) had people from prominent, wealthy families. Thats just how the country has always worked. I dont think its fair and I dont think its right but thats just how it is. The common man has little to no say in what happens in government. We are just given the illusion we do so we dont revolt. If enough people ever realized this fact and DID something about it, we'd have something akin to the French revolution. I think thats why we dont. Too many people would die.

I agree with InfinitysDaughter. If you back up your arguments, then we can have a real debate.

In some states at least, people can register as undecided and then each party can decide for themselves whether or not they want to let the undecideds vote in their conventions. So in this case, the people with the power are the heads of the conventions.

Money wise: Regardless of fairness, I want to know if the current system is DEMOCRATIC. So since the people with more money got that money through work, (assuming they did not obtain it through illegal means) does it coincide with democratic principles, or should the government put regulations on air time for candidates? And what about commercials? Should the government regulate commercial time in order to obtain a more democratic election, or would that be hindering free speech?

I dont think its democratic. If it was, they would all get the same amount of air time. The government would pay for there trips so each candidate could go to every state at least once. No one candidate would have an advantage save for what there platform consists of.


I dont think it would be hindering free speech because its not like one person wasn't given the right to speak. They all got to speak, they all got to say what they wanted.

I agree that it would be good if everyone got equal air time, but then you get in to this situation: After his air time is all used up, a candidate walks into a central park holding a guitar, singing. Other lone musicians join him. People start to laugh, dance, sing, and watch. A crown gathers. Eventually, the candidate begins a speech. Can the press cover this strange story? What if a candidate stands on a windowsill of a very high building? Can the press cover that? Basically, how far will certain people go to get press attention further than the gov't limit?
Also, the press usually decides who gets let into debates, right? So they control who we see on T.V. and radio that way as well. Would debates count as government issued air time?

In a true democracy every candidate that wants to run has the same exact amount of people time. All of there campaigning time would be taken out of a set amount alloted by the government. If they campaign and dont turn in the time then they would be violating a law.

Debates would only take place if all candidates could be there.

A truly even playing field were every person voting has the exact same exposure to the candidate is the only democracy. Then it would come down to who could speak better and who has the best platform.


Honestly, right now, I only know 3 candidates. Obama, Hillary, and McCain. Why? Cuse they are the only ones the press is talking about and the press is letting speak. I have no idea who else is running or what they stand on. They could have really good platforms but I'd never know because the media isn't airing anything for them.


Then you have the minor parties that noone ever hears about. Who's the Green Parties candidate this year? Noone knows because the media dosn't care about them.



Democracy is only effective if the actual voters are informed of ALL the runners.

I do not believe the government should limit air time. America is supposed to be a free country (to a point, there are still laws) but if we start limiting air time then the next thing we are going to do is outlaw swearing (which i think is bad but that is not the point) and outlaw the use of cell phones while driving because they distract the driver. No. It is better that America is free. It is what makes the United States of America so great. We are still free.

In response to the post by InfinitysDaughter:

I agree that in a perfect world, every candidate would get equal air time, but is it the government's responsibility to allocate air time? Wouldn't that limit the media's right to free coverage of whatever stories they choose? If the government starts limiting the media in ANY way, that could cause a chain reaction, and no one wants bureaucratic agencies controlling the news.

Also, there are always loop holes. What if the green party decides to have three candidates run, but two of the candidates spend ALL their air time praising the third candidate. Then that candidate practically has three times as much air time as the rest!

It does not seem possible for debates to always have every candidate. The debates would not happen very often, because the candidates are traveling the country trying to get votes.

Basically, I wish the system could be fair, but I do not believe it is possible, practically speaking.

Also, we must consider the definition of democracy. Simply put, it is everyone getting one vote. So regardless of air time, isn't it democratic as long as everyone gets their vote?

@Gordon Freeman: Freedom is what makes America a wonderful country, but without SOME limits on freedom, there would be no government. Think about it. Complete freedom is no laws which is anarchy, right? So is the best government anarchy? I would think not! In an anarchy, gangs rule because if you go against a gang, you get beat up or shot. So anarchy actually limits freedoms. With that in mind, we must think about what laws we want in our social contract with the government.
Swearing does no harm, and limiting it would be an impingement of free speech, but I like rules that prohibit swearing in schools and on forums like Menewsha because I feel more comfortable in a profanity-free situation.
If studies can prove that driving with cell phones causes an increase in car crashes, then I would support a law banning their use in cars. I do not want to die because someone could not wait until their drive was over to chat with their friends. I believe we can be free and still have laws that protect safety. That is what makes America so great. We have balance.