Nope. I like to talk politics, but I can't play the necessary games. So, I'd rather be a constituent to a person that actually listens to my opinions and weighs it in with the others, so there's no Tyranny of Soxy.

And there's that. . .But mostly the former.

 

Well if you are out of the race, would you be willing to help moderate things with me? That way Balta doesn't have to worry about it, no matter what he decides.

Well if you are out of the race, would you be willing to help moderate things with me? That way Balta doesn't have to worry about it, no matter what he decides.

I'd love to.

I'd love to.

 

Excellent. I don't think anyone will be able to accuse of working together in our bias's and agenda's

Excellent. I don't think anyone will be able to accuse of working together in our bias's and agenda's

When is the election.

I would like to make a proposal. Since we have a plethora of candidates, why not have primaries and then have a Dem, a Rep, and a Ind for a ticket and run? We could use the platforms and these threads and vote by this weekend. Then run the main campaigns.

I would like to make a proposal. Since we have a plethora of candidates, why not have primaries and then have a Dem, a Rep, and a Ind for a ticket and run? We could use the platforms and these threads and vote by this weekend. Then run the main campaigns.

 

That's a great idea. You must have a brilliant advisor

That's a great idea. You must have a brilliant advisor

 

that would be you

How would that work? Would we only get to vote in one primary? Or could we vote in all of them?

How would that work? Would we only get to vote in one primary? Or could we vote in all of them?

 

My suggestion, because of the amount of people running, would be strawpolls to eliminate people at a few different stages... I think if we broke up people into parties it would be a more difficult fit as very few fit into Democrat or Republician, and most would be independant.

How would that work? Would we only get to vote in one primary? Or could we vote in all of them?

 

Depends on how realistic we want. I believe the new software would allow a scheme for one vote, but we probably should allow people to vote in each primary.

I think primaries are a great idea, but I do not want parties to be a factor. That was one of the main reasons I wanted to do this - to make it about MANY views, not 2.

 

Let's see how many candidates we get, and then determine what the step-down count will be. Right now, I'd lean towards having a run-off for the top 3 vote-getters.

 

 

Depends on how realistic we want. I believe the new software would allow a scheme for one vote, but we probably should allow people to vote in each primary.

I'll do two polls. One for the primary, then one for the run-off.

When is the election.

I will work with SS2K5 and Soxy to put together a more specific plan, and update this thread with that info soon.

If, for example, the three remaining were all liberals or conservatives, you will have a lot of similar opinions. By culling along self identifying labels, we could reasonably be assured some diversity of opinions in the final debates. That was one of the factors that killed the debate thread.

After perusing the platforms, since I live in The Democratic Socialist Republic of Minneapolis, I don't believe any of you are far enough left for my tastes.

 

I guess I'll have to settle for the least of many evils.

If, for example, the three remaining were all liberals or conservatives, you will have a lot of similar opinions. By culling along self identifying labels, we could reasonably be assured some diversity of opinions in the final debates. That was one of the factors that killed the debate thread.

But I think we'll do the debate differently here. I have some ideas.

 

I'm going to break out the "I started it" thing here - I don't want the election coming down to party. Unless there is a super-majority here who disagree.

If, for example, the three remaining were all liberals or conservatives, you will have a lot of similar opinions. By culling along self identifying labels, we could reasonably be assured some diversity of opinions in the final debates. That was one of the factors that killed the debate thread.

Due to the distribution of candidates, I just don't think a party primary will work. Right now we have 4 Independants, 2 Dems and 1 Repub. So, if we do parties, we might not end up with the "best" of all candidates, instead we'll end up with a lopsided group of candidates who were selected more on the basis of party than their ideas (especially for the 1 person running as a republican and the 2 democrats). I say level out the field for the Ind and do as NSS72 suggests.

 

And, knowing our posters here, I don't think we'll end up with a really one-sided selection of candidates.

I still think the strawpoll method would work best. What we would do is on the first ballot have everyone out there for people to vote on. We would eliminate the bottom third of canditates at that point. Then we would have campaigns for a while longer, have another ballot, then elimintate the bottom half of canditates, to leave us with our final election ballot of 3-4 people. In this respect everyone is voting for the canditate that they want, and with only one vote, I don't think it would give much of an ability to skew the tally's towards one party or another. But if it did end up skewing the totals towards one group, that would mean the canditates would just have to work harder to separate themselves from the rest of their competition.

 

Thoughts?

I don't think parties will come into this, no matter how we trim down. I think thousands of posts by the candidates and the opinions that people already have, will be the basis. I really doubt, even the most hardcore party faithful, would vote for a candidate because they call themselves a Dem/Rep/Ind

I still think the strawpoll method would work best. What we would do is on the first ballot have everyone out there for people to vote on. We would eliminate the bottom third of canditates at that point. Then we would have campaigns for a while longer, have another ballot, then elimintate the bottom half of canditates, to leave us with our final election ballot of 3-4 people. In this respect everyone is voting for the canditate that they want, and with only one vote, I don't think it would give much of an ability to skew the tally's towards one party or another. But if it did end up skewing the totals towards one group, that would mean the canditates would just have to work harder to separate themselves from the rest of their competition.

 

Thoughts?

Do we want all three rounds? Or just two? Maybe let's see what the final candidate count is and decide.

A question for all of the canditates...

 

How would you propose to ween the US off of fossil fuels, while not doing too much inflationary damage to the lowest classes of the US?

 

Anyone?

I really doubt, even the most hardcore party faithful, would vote for a candidate because they call themselves a Dem/Rep/Ind

 

On the contrary, a Dem/Rep/Ind would be my kind of guy. A real uniter, not a divider.

 

Anyone?

 

I thought that was being saved for the debates??

I thought that was being saved for the debates??

We're working on some details offline for the rest of the election. For now, people are welcome to answer any question they'd like.

Anyone?

 

Mr. Southsider2k5,

 

I had something more written out, but I felt like being short and sweet. I think I would approach this subject with the humility to admit that I am by no means an expert on this subject. I am quite familiar with many alternative souces of energy, but I would try to build a non-partisan task force with the intention of solving this issue and building a timeline for change that includes immediate steps as well as long term goals. I would appoint members who have varying backgrounds in energy policy, i.e. green energy experts, oil industry experts, and economists, with the intention of understanding all sides of the issue.

 

 

PA