I agree the nation is not motivated because quite honestly people don't care as much about politics as we think they do. For example Joe Sixpack in Massachusetts doesn't care about Bush's social security proposal because he is old enough that it won't affect him, but he does care about rising health care and prescription drug costs. But in Georgia 21 year old Johnny Reb cares about it, but doesn't care about health care because he is covered under his parents as a student. America is not polarized but the media wants us to think so.
Also, candidates sprint towards the center during the general election because they are trying to catch as many voters as they can under their giant umbrella. They are looking for anyone who will actually show up at the polls and pull the lever for them. (Don't get me started on voting turnout.) Candidates will make empty promises to anyone who will listen.
This is why the primary process is flawed, it chooses candidates who are generally too conservative or too liberal for the majority of voters. This happens because only highly motivated political activists vote (kinda like this guy). We should do away with the whole primary system and go back to having the parties choose the candidates at the conventions. Because after all that is what the conventions are for, or did you just think they were to smooze and get good food and spirits for free?
Changing the primary system is definately a way to change how extreme the candidates are, but the most ideological people tend to also be in the party, and many people like the impression that the candidates are chosen by normal people, even if they aren't. I have been racking my brain recently for a solution to this...but I haven't found one that satisfies both ends.
I know it would be problamatic in many ways, but what about just having a general election that is actually general? No primaries, no conventions, just let everyone vote. Obviously, we'd have to do away with the electoral college, and would probably even have to adopt a run-off system similiar to (gasp) the French, but this would open it up to a lot more people. Of course, the parties would never go for this, because it would also allow for a strong third-party candidate to compete, but its an idea.
I don't think a run off system would work in this country, for the reasons previously mentioned but also because of the length of our election cycle. The system may not be perfect but its worked fine thus far so we shouldn't make any major changes unless we are sure they are for the best.
I agree with Matt. I dislike the run-off becuase it almost allows people to double-vote, and makes the electoral system more complex than it needs to be.
The electoral college and today the parties/primary system, act as a safeguard agianst true extremists (anarchists, communists, fascists, etc.) from running. Primary voters may be ideological, but they know a crackpot when they see one.
So do regular voters...I'm not saying its wholly a good idea, and it would never happen, but the run off system in France, for instance, prevented Le Pen from winning. I just think it gives more power directly to the people. I don't see how it "makes the electoral system more complex than it needs to be" while the electoral college system does not...most people have no idea how that works outside those of us who really care.
"The system may not be perfect but its worked fine thus far." --I don't consider a system where the guy who gets fewer votes wins to be "working fine." Its not just Bush I'm talking about either; its happened several times. I know things probably won't change, but it never hurts to brainstorm.
Commenting by HaloScan
