I'm Politically Stupid and Need Help

[SteelClip49]

I picked a wrong time to be as well but at UCO I am in a Political Communication class where we will tackle all areas of politics, the presidential candidates involved and how much the media has an impact in politics. I alsl on a professional preparation course called Television News and right away we are covering the candidates of both parties and tackling different stories regarding the candidates themselves and their campaign efforts in Oklahoma.

I have done some research and have gotten some answers from my professors and classmates but I was hoping I could get some insight from some of you guys who seem to have knack on reality...It's obvious I lack a knack, not just on politics but politics would be my weakest area.

What is a caucus and what is a primary?

How much of an impact does Oklahoma have in helping the candidates who will be campaigning, other than every vote counts?

What is Super Tuesday and what the exact purpose for it?

From both parties, who is the clear frontrunner from each party?

Also, does Hillary stand a good chance to be the top democratic candidate when it's all said and done and does she really have a legit chance to become our President?

All of this is just very confusing and I try to pay attention and stay involved as much as I can. I am a 6th year brooadcasting senior, formerly at OU, now finishing last 2 years at UCO and I am very involved with media issues locally, nationally and around the world but I am just freaking retarded and just dead lost in the political aspect. Any help any of you can give me is greatly appreciated.

[anglachel]

In simplest terms a primary is a normal election where party members (usually but not in every state) elect their candidate for the general election.

A caucus is very similar except it is in the form of a meeting(s) where people vote at the end.

There are variations of each.

[royalfan5]

Where's Sic'Em when you need him?

[SicEmBaylor]

I picked a wrong time to be as well but at UCO I am in a Political Communication class where we will tackle all areas of politics, the presidential candidates involved and how much the media has an impact in politics. I alsl on a professional preparation course called Television News and right away we are covering the candidates of both parties and tackling different stories regarding the candidates themselves and their campaign efforts in Oklahoma.

I have done some research and have gotten some answers from my professors and classmates but I was hoping I could get some insight from some of you guys who seem to have knack on reality...It's obvious I lack a knack, not just on politics but politics would be my weakest area.


What is a caucus and what is a primary?
The purpose of both a primary and a caucus is to choose what candidate will be that party's nominee for a particular office. The method of choosing is different in each case. A primary is what you would typically think of an election being. You simply show up to your designated polling station whenever you wish, cast your ballot, and leave.

A caucus is closer to the old nominating conventions on a much smaller scale. Everyone who wishes to vote and participate shows up at the designated place and designated hour. At that point, things differ a bit between the GOP and Democrats but you essentially caucus with those supporting the same candidate and cast your ballot. It gets somewhat complex when getting into the issue of 2nd choice and what not.


How much of an impact does Oklahoma have in helping the candidates who will be campaigning, other than every vote counts?

I'm not real sure what your question is. As a one-time candidate, I can tell you that the state is pretty good about answering questions surrounding ethics and financial reporting. That's pretty much it, and I'm not sure what else they could do.


What is Super Tuesday and what the exact purpose for it?
Super Tuesday is simply when a large bloc of states will be holding their primary on the same day. This year it's on February 5th, and I believe it's the first time Oklahoma has had its primary on Super Tuesday.


From both parties, who is the clear frontrunner from each party?

There isn't one.


Also, does Hillary stand a good chance to be the top democratic candidate when it's all said and done and does she really have a legit chance to become our President?

Of course she does.


One more thing, please do not vote.


All of this is just very confusing and I try to pay attention and stay involved as much as I can. I am a 6th year brooadcasting senior, formerly at OU, now finishing last 2 years at UCO and I am very involved with media issues locally, nationally and around the world but I am just freaking retarded and just dead lost in the political aspect. Any help any of you can give me is greatly appreciated.

[SicEmBaylor]

Where's Sic'Em when you need him?

In the process of typing. ;)

[Ike]

Speaking of these things, I often wonder why this nations voting systems ask so little of the electorate. Consider primaries. You are asked to choose one person in one party. But especially in states where people can vote in either primary, the results can get confusing. If a person thinks their guy is either going to run away with or get skunked in their primary, they can go to the other partys primary and try to influence the outcome there. Things are even more confusing in caucus states.

In the general, we are asked only to pick one of two (sometimes 3) options, and this will pick our leader, and somehow inform the country about what 'the people' really want.

Why not go to a system that is more informative? Why not rank the candidates in order of preference? Or, why not make "not X" or "not Y" choices on the ballot as well. The 'not' votes then get subtracted from the candidates vote total.

It's my opinion that the elected leaders would get a clearer feeling about what the people really want if some of these options were to be made available to voters at the ballot box.

[Jerk]

Please don't vote! You'll encourage the bast*rds.

[SicEmBaylor]

Speaking of these things, I often wonder why this nations voting systems ask so little of the electorate. Consider primaries. You are asked to choose one person in one party. But especially in states where people can vote in either primary, the results can get confusing. If a person thinks their guy is either going to run away with or get skunked in their primary, they can go to the other partys primary and try to influence the outcome there. Things are even more confusing in caucus states.

In the general, we are asked only to pick one of two (sometimes 3) options, and this will pick our leader, and somehow inform the country about what 'the people' really want.

Why not go to a system that is more informative? Why not rank the candidates in order of preference? Or, why not make "not X" or "not Y" choices on the ballot as well. The 'not' votes then get subtracted from the candidates vote total.

It's my opinion that the elected leaders would get a clearer feeling about what the people really want if some of these options were to be made available to voters at the ballot box.

I really don't think the masses can handle anything that complex. They can't even handle the "one mark -- one vote" concept now. Plus, it'd be very very difficult to work that system in the real world. I'm not entirely sure how you would distribute electors unless a certain percentage of "yes" = a certain number of electors. It'd be very difficult.

Personally, I wish more states would get rid of their "winner take all" electoral system and go the route of Maine that divides it by Congressional district. Basically, the winner of each each congressional district would get that district's electors. The candidate who won the most districts would get the two additional state delegates -- in the case of a tie the two state delegates would be split between the two top candidates.

[SicEmBaylor]

Is this class offered under the Political Science Department or under Journalism/Communications?

[GottaHavePride]

I really don't think the masses can handle anything that complex. They can't even handle the "one mark -- one vote" concept now. Plus, it'd be very very difficult to work that system in the real world. I'm not entirely sure how you would distribute electors unless a certain percentage of "yes" = a certain number of electors. It'd be very difficult.


F*** the electoral college.

There, I said it. Go to a straight democratic vote.

Also, if the internet is secure enough for us to pay our taxes online, it's secure enough to vote online. Put up a simultaneous web-based voting system and watch voter participation skyrocket.

[yermom]

as if the process wasn't shady enough...

[GottaHavePride]

as if the process wasn't shady enough...

See, I've been through the system you have to register with to apply for grants from the federal government, and it's pretty rigorous. No reason you couldn't do something like that for voter registration, and it issues you a one-shot login to vote. If it screws up, you re-register, it voids the previous vote, and you get a new one-shot login.

Then implement a process where all live in-person votes are checked against the database of online votes, and any duplicate voters are tossed out entirely. Give people a one-week window to vote.

Completely eliminates the necessity for absentee ballots, as well. You don't like the internet? Show up to a physical polling location.

Could hackers compromise it? Yes, but not any worse than a FLorida oversight committee. And if hackers can throw an entire election without anyone detecting it, they're smart enough to be running the country anyway. ;)

[Whet]

F*** the electoral college.

There, I said it. Go to a straight democratic vote.

Also, if the internet is secure enough for us to pay our taxes online, it's secure enough to vote online. Put up a simultaneous web-based voting system and watch voter participation skyrocket.

If we went to a straight democratic vote, you would have New York City, Chicago, LA, and Houston determine the President. Your vote in Oklahoma would be meaningless. The candidates would concentrate on those large voting areas, rather than waste their efforts in small cities, bergs, or villages, not to mention rural areas.

At least with the current system, every state is involved in the process to some degree.

Afterall, we are a republic, not a democracy.

[SicEmBaylor]

F*** the electoral college.

There, I said it. Go to a straight democratic vote.

Also, if the internet is secure enough for us to pay our taxes online, it's secure enough to vote online. Put up a simultaneous web-based voting system and watch voter participation skyrocket.

I love that you know more than the Framers. ;)

I could go on all night, but everything you said is a horrible idea. Simply horrible. It would equal the death of the Republic just as sure as apes are ugly.

[OUinFLA]

I really don't think the masses can handle anything that complex. They can't even handle the "one mark -- one vote" concept now. .

Oh sure, like it's even that easy!

you ought to try using a stylus and punching out a notched card.
or as we Floridians refer to it..........
Hanging a Chad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/images/recount.jpg

:D

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh sure, like it's even that easy!

you ought to try using a stylus and punching out a notched card.
or as we Floridians refer to it..........
Hanging a Chad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/images/recount.jpg

:D

No, no, that system is brilliant. The more complex the more it discourages idiots from trying! :D

[SanJoaquinSooner]

From both parties, who is the clear frontrunner from each party?

It will be much clearer after mega Tuesday. There are no clear frontrunners.


Also, does Hillary stand a good chance to be the top democratic candidate when it's all said and done and does she really have a legit chance to become our President?

Senator Clinton has a reasonable chance of being the nominee as well as Madam President. This year may be the Republican's 1964 again.

[Soonerfan88]

Personally, I wish more states would get rid of their "winner take all" electoral system and go the route of Maine that divides it by Congressional district. Basically, the winner of each each congressional district would get that district's electors. The candidate who won the most districts would get the two additional state delegates -- in the case of a tie the two state delegates would be split between the two top candidates.

If the Electoral College must stay, then I agree that is the only way it should be divided. But I'm with GHP - majority vote should win. I know many people who don't bother voting because they don't believe it means anything as Candidate X is a lock to win their state because the talking heads on TV said so. Who knows what the actual outcomes might have been if even half of those people voted for the other guy.



To answer FmrEmpOUathdept:
How much of an impact does Oklahoma have in helping the candidates who will be campaigning, other than every vote counts?


I'm not what you mean here. If you are asking how important OK is in the electoral college, we are a small population state so it's not tremendous. Also, OK has never been known as much of a swing state (either party could win) - Okies are usually Democratic state & local but Republican national. :confused:


From both parties, who is the clear frontrunner from each party?


No clear frontrunner anywhere. Dems are split between Hillary & Obama. Reps will probably come down to McCain & Romney but Huckabee could be a dark horse.


Also, does Hillary stand a good chance to be the top democratic candidate when it's all said and done and does she really have a legit chance to become our President?


Hillary has a very good chance of getting the Dem nomination. She also has a chance of winning the whole thing, but it's not as slam-dunk as the Dems like to think. No matter what some say on TV, even the women's vote isn't locked up. Women are harder on each other than they are on men and Hillary provides a lot of material to work over.

It takes time and effort, but the best way to decide on your vote is to thoroughly research each candidate and then determine which best matches your views (no one will make them all) and which of the differences will make the most impact. Try not to let yourself be swayed by the rhetoric spewed on TV & radio and don't vote to please your family or friends. They have their own vote and your have yours.

[OUinFLA]

I know many people who don't bother voting because they don't believe it means anything as Candidate X is a lock to win their state because the talking heads on TV said so. Who knows what the actual outcomes might have been if even half of those people voted for the other guy.



I have an interesting idea.
How about we ban the talking heads from talking at all during an election year?
for the whole year

[SicEmBaylor]

If the Electoral College must stay, then I agree that is the only way it should be divided. But I'm with GHP - majority vote should win. I know many people who don't bother voting because they don't believe it means anything as Candidate X is a lock to win their state because the talking heads on TV said so. Who knows what the actual outcomes might have been if even half of those people voted for the other guy.

:sigh:

As has been mentioned before, this nation was neither built nor set up to run as a Democracy. We are a REPUBLIC. Direct-election would destroy the very last remnant of our Federalist system. It flies in the face of nearly every warming the Founding Fathers gave us concerning voting, and it sure as hell destroys the underyling principles of the Constitution. I'd also like to echo what has been said and point out that it would heavily favor urban voters at the expense of rule and less populated states. Basically, the east and west coasts would be deciding the election with perhaps Chicago/mid-west thrown in to tilt the balance one way or another.



I'm not what you mean here. If you are asking how important OK is in the electoral college, we are a small population state so it's not tremendous. Also, OK has never been known as much of a swing state (either party could win) - Okies are usually Democratic state & local but Republican national. :confused:

But, Oklahoma combined with other sized states and as part of the southern bloc is EXTREMELY important.



No clear frontrunner anywhere. Dems are split between Hillary & Obama. Reps will probably come down to McCain & Romney but Huckabee could be a dark horse.

Huckabee was a dark horse and is now a serious contender. He has the toughest route to go, but he's hardly "possibly a dark horse."


Hillary has a very good chance of getting the Dem nomination. She also has a chance of winning the whole thing, but it's not as slam-dunk as the Dems like to think. No matter what some say on TV, even the women's vote isn't locked up. Women are harder on each other than they are on men and Hillary provides a lot of material to work over.[/quote[

That's not how they vote though. The female vote is very solid and very predictable. Though there is variation depending on age and marital status.

[quote]It takes time and effort, but the best way to decide on your vote is to thoroughly research each candidate and then determine which best matches your views (no one will make them all) and which of the differences will make the most impact. Try not to let yourself be swayed by the rhetoric spewed on TV & radio and don't vote to please your family or friends. They have their own vote and your have yours.

Completely wrong. The proper way to evaluate a candidate is the role he/she intends to play in that office. I'd vote for a Democrat who understood the proper role of a President even if I didn't agree with them on most issues.

[SteelClip49]

thanks for all the help everyone.

SicEm, it is listed under the mass communication section.

BTW, why shouldn't I vote?

[SicEmBaylor]

thanks for all the help everyone.

SicEm, it is listed under the mass communication section.

BTW, why shouldn't I vote?

Because you obviously don't know the candidates, but more importantly than that I'm guessing you don't know the proper constitutional role of the President/Congress/Supreme Court and their relative responsibilities as compared to the individual states.

In either case, people who know little to nothing of politics or government seriously have no business voting.

[1stTimeCaller]

you've been in college for 6 years and you don't know what a primary is?

Wow.

[Soonerfan88]

I'm actually relieved to know that SicEm and I don't think alike.

And, again, please don't assume anyone knows how women voters will fall on the Hillary question. Overall, women aren't any more predictable than men. As a woman, I think I have a better perspective on this than you. If there is a "female voting block" there is a "male voting block" yet I don't see men being lumped together in a single thought track (just speaking of politics as we all know their main thought tracks are naked women, alcohol, and sports ;)).

[OUinFLA]

, I think I have a better perspective on this than you.

this is SicEm you're talking about. you are in the majority.

:D

[OCUDad]

In either case, people who know little to nothing of politics or government seriously have no business voting.We're a republic, not an oligarchy. Climb down off your perch and lighten up.

[OUinFLA]

WORD NERD ALERT!



:D

[OCUDad]

WORD NERD ALERT!



:D:mad:HEY!:mad:

[Ike]

Huckabee was a dark horse and is now a serious contender. He has the toughest route to go, but he's hardly "possibly a dark horse."



He did call himself "Seabiscuit" though....


(as did a number of other candidates)