Quote:
Originally posted by Monster Megamind
You people should remember that in UK, India etc general people don't even get to choose the presidential potentials. The party chooses the most popular candidate and the gp have to vote directly in general elections... I would think you should consider yourselves lucky... And I don't think a person who doesn't care enough to associate himself with the Democratic party should get a chance to vote as an independent. What right do you have! You just want to jump at the better candidate even if it means Republican... You should start a third party if you are that affected by this...
|
That is pretty common. The aspect that is different: In India, as with many countries, there are many more parties. UK to a lesser extent, but more so than the U.S.. Canada is similar to the U.K. I think. India uses
single transferable voting as opposed to winner take all, for one of their branches. This allows for many more parties to have a say. This makes primaries less important. I'm guessing the parties in India like Australia and many European countries, are more homogenous with their ideas and are very predictable. All the candidates and elected officials are probably pretty similar. If one party doesn't change quite how you like, then you can just vote for a different party that is a little better for your liking.
In the U.S., we don't have that luxury. I would argue that the inclusion of primaries/caucuses actually
reinforced the two party system. In the past, if the Party establishment did not want to change, then the people were forced to create a different party to represent themselves. With primaries anyone can just run and attempt to change the party (some people will call it "hijacking"). That is what Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did to there parties. That is what Donald Trump is trying to do (sorta) and that is definitely what Bernie Sanders is
trying to do, somewhat successfully.
I was wearing a navy skirt. I'm not sure I saw you.
