That won't be the case in the GOP primary.
Romney is nothing like Paul who is not like Bachmann who is A LOT like Palin who is nothing like Palenty.
Paul won't move, Romney/Palenty/Newt CERTAINLY will... and Bachmann will push the bar as far right as she can.
I really don't think Palin will run- she knows she is unelectable... even in the Primary.
but were she to decide to do so... her popularity and likeness to Bachmann will push the bar even further right.
Gonna be interesting.
poo on Ron Paul. and i have not seen one solid argument that backs why people do not like sarah palin on these forums. she did a LOT of great things for Alaska and her hometown. if i supported a woman to run the country, i'd vote for her. but i'm not so i wouldnt
I am probably going to have to change my status from Independent to Republican because I don't see any other candidate (at this point) that I would vote for over Ron Paul. I really don't like the fact that an Independent cannot vote in primaries for either party, and I think if they could you would see a lot more registered that way.... more of a free flowing system IMO.
A women will be president
Donald Trump. Oh yeah.
A women will run the u.s, because a history has to be broken and 2012 is it or the next election
I envy you guys with your awesome electoral system.
All we get in Australia is the same two groups going head to head. Which is generally a douche or a turd sandwich.
Rudd was the best PM we had in ages and lots of people loved him but then the government switched him with a fricken Ginger.
That is how messed up Australia is.
You guys are lucky.
Actually- I feel that the electoral college is very outdated and needs to be scrapped.
the fact that a state can go 50.1 to 49.9... and yet someone gets ALL that state electoral votes doesn't really feel like democracy.
The upheaval in states like WI, OH, PA, IN, MI, is going to have an impact at the ballot box as well...
A lot of anger out there right now...
Meh, the electoral college still serves a purpose, it helps ensure less populated areas and minority interests still get a voice and are represented.
Dividing electoral votes? In that case you say keep the electoral college, but modify it?
It helps give minorities more of a voice because they tend to congregate in high population areas where when pooled together they are able to shift ALL of the votes one way or another, that's a lot of power.
If it was a PURE popular vote, candidates would likely worry most with appealing to the majority of the voters and mostly in densely populated areas rather than worrying as much about rural locations.
I do however understand your dislike with the current system, I just don't think the con's far out weigh the pro's like you seem to think.
I don't see your point.
right now- besides Nebraska... the popular vote decides where ALL electoral votes go. Thus the minority vote counts for nothing.
Yes, the popular votes in the states do. But, like I said, minority groups tend to group together in cities, and in populous states with high minority concentrations, they have the ability to swing ALL of the electoral votes to a candidate. So, if it were a popular vote, it would be one for one, but if minorities turned out heavy in a few states where popular vote might only have been separated by 10's of thousands of votes, all the electoral votes would go to which ever candidate the minorities voted for. It essentially gives them more power on a national election than a popular vote would, which is part of the reason candidates have to target the minority vote, because it's able to swing an entire states electoral vote (depends on the state though).
Be that as it may, a female president will changes things like no male president ever could