Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Essentially*, there are five kind of primaries in America:

-Closed: Only party members can vote in primaries. RIP Independents.

-Semi-closed: Only party members and independents can vote in a primary, the latter being restricted to one primary. We hate you, Independents, but we're afraid you're going to cause a ruckus if we disenfranchise you entirety. Put the grey ties away, we'll let you vote.

-Semi-open: You chose a party-specific ballot to vote on, but don't have to declare your allegiance. Extremely wishy-washy but effective.

-Open: You can pick a party primary to vote in and vote in it, regardless of your allegiance. This allows people from opposing parties to sow chaos in other parties if they are willing to abandon voting in their own primary.

-Blanket: You can vote in every primary regardless of your affiliation. Oh god, what the fuck have you done? Now everybody can both vote for who they want and then go sow chaos in the other party. You fucking maniacs.

*Which is to say, "specifics vary between every state, but this the simplified overview for overseas socialists and high school students".

[Max White]

So if each state has the right to make their own rules about how this works, does that mean one could, in theory, skip this primaries bullshit and go for preferential voting?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well, no. Even with preferential voting there would still be primaries.

[Sheb]

I still can't get around the fact that it is the state that organize party's primaries. I mean, it's party business, they should be able to do it any way they want. Of course, we don't have the two party, first-past-the-post system, so primaries aren't as important.

[Max White]

Yea, it certainly seems like something the parties should be responsible for... Although with the US two party system, so much conflicting ideologies have been forced into the same party that I think the term has a lot less meaning over there.

I don't think the US truly has parties, just vague labels that make it easier for uninformed voters to make a choice.

[wierd]

Its part of the "loveliness" of the electoral college.

In conception, the idea was that each state operates similarly to the member nations of your EU-- each state was supposed to have broad sweeping autonomy, with the fed level having minimalistic powers governing international politics, interstate commerce disputes, and wartime operations.

Everything else was supposed to be at the state level. The congress and senate are representative gatherings, intended to represent the interests of those autonomous states where such interstate commerce resolutions and pals were to be decided.

With this in mind, each state was, theoretically, its own microcosm of political authority, and the "republican party" in one state was independent of the "republican party" of another state. "Iowa republicans" and "california republicans" were presumably very different bodies, with very different goals, because they are in very different places.

Remember, the system was created in a time BEFORE mass transit and near-instant communication. 

If it helps you guys from Europe out-- Imagine your citizenship no longer being "german", or "french", but instead now being "European Unionist", as the autonomy of those nations crumbles in the face of that of the council. (I think that's right--- the one that ISN'T elected.)

You now no longer have a "pirate party of germany", you have a "pirate party of the european union". Etc, and have people in belgum deciding what people in italy can and can't do.

The united states was not intended to be federalized to the extent that it is now. The requirements in the different states for primary elections is an artifact of the time before.

[Sheb]

Actually, we already got a European Pirate Party and people in Brussels already tells Italians what they can and cannot do.

[wierd]

Well then, You wont have long to wait until the EU is every bit as dysfunctional as us idiots across the pond.

You guys just have more party affiliations to drown the dysfunction in.

[10ebbor10]

Link

On a side note, most of these silly EU laws that UKIP spreads around are made up. This one is real though. ((For one, the bendy banana law is exactly the same as all previous regulations, in both the UK, the OECD and whatever relevant institutions.))

Here's an entire list of things.

[wierd]

Clearly, Brussels thinks that the only PROPER way to cure dehydration is by drinking melted chocolate. I understand that they have fountains of the stuff all over, no?
(/Completely_non-serious_retardedness)

[Sheb]

Actually, a couple guys asked if a specific statement could be made about water, which the the Telegraph doesn't even give us in full...

Also, in many case dehydration is caused by a medical condition, and drinking water won't help. If your baby is dehydrating because of a diarrhea, giving him plain water won't save him. He needs ORS (which granted is just water with salt and sugar in it). I can see the reasoning behind banning a claim like that on bottled water that could lead some people to make some stupid decision.

Edit: I dug a little, and found this opinion from the EFSA, saying that they agree that water help hydrate. So yeah, as usual don't trust the Telegraph.

[wierd]

Even with something like pedialite (A US brandname for an OTC pediatric electrolyte solution), in the face of severe bowel incontinence or diuretic urination, it wont be enough. In such cases, if an intravenous IV is not available, then an inert bulking agent is also needed to slow the rate of loss. (Something like kaolin clay particles, or activated carbon.) That's getting into the realm of outright medical treatment there though.

Rather than blanket ban though, Brussels should have mandated the requirement of added verbiage to the extend of "-for nonmedical purposes", or to specify that the claim is only for healthy individuals, such as "as part of a health maintenance regimen". 


(Relevant link)
That is similar to the catch-all seen on various "Healthfood store preparations" (ahem), bearing the FDA required "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA, and this product is not intended to treat or cure any medical condition" here in the US.  It could be a bottle of milk saying "helps build strong bones!", if the FDA hasnt tested that, it has to have that label on it. That would make at least some sense.

[10ebbor10]

Point is, the claim was that it prevents dehydration. Not curing, but preventing.

Point is, I prefer it if they ban nonsense claims (which happens quite often in the EU) rather than letting the companies loophole themselves out of it. I mean, if it simply isn't true/proven, it shouldn't be on there. Most people don't read the fine print, after all.

[wierd]

If the statement is simply flat out untrue-- "Drinking Ultramax will make you be able to defy gravity, and will make you instantly popular with any woman you choose! Drink Ultramax!" -- then that would fall under a totally different type of regulation-- Here in the US, that's the Truth in Advertising laws.

[Max White]

See the thing is would a claim that silly be covered as satire?