Seriously, GOP? Really?

[Dinner]

House members aren't generally as wealthy as senators. Senators often need to be able to self-finance a lot of their campaigns, which are statewide. Campaign finance laws

Isn't your dad a lobbyist?

[Hauldren Collider]

No? He's an actuary...where the **** did you get the idea he's a lobbyist?

[Felch]

No, the normal process is that candidates get involved with the party [bosses] at grassroots level, build a reputation locally helping the party [bosses] and then run for nomination having gained the trust of the party [bosses]. Then again our candidates don't need to be rich in order to stand, which is why we don't suck at democracy.

You were missing some key words there. Why shouldn't the party members in a constituency choose their own candidate? Or do you not trust the voters to make these sorts of important decisions?

[Felch]

On the other hand, the total amount of money which must be spent to have a successful campaign will increase enormously.

Obviously this greatly increases the power that wealth provides in our democracy.

Campaign finance laws

JM

Under the old rules, Romney would have been untouchable. I don't like Gingrich or Santorum, but I'm glad that their Super PACs have been able to keep the primaries competitive.

[Dinner]

No? He's an actuary...where the **** did you get the idea he's a lobbyist?

Not sure.

[Dinner]

Under the old rules, Romney would have been untouchable. I don't like Gingrich or Santorum, but I'm glad that their Super PACs have been able to keep the primaries competitive.

Under the current rules (instead of the rigged winner takes all rules) it would be even more competitive without the Super PACs. Right now the only reason Romney squeezed out a win in places like Michigan was because of the Super PAC carpet bombing of the air waves.

[Hauldren Collider]

The only reason Santorum posed a threat, meanwhile, was because big donors kept his campaign alive when no one else cared at all about him. That would have been impossible with a $2,500 cap.

[kentonio]

You were missing some key words there. Why shouldn't the party members in a constituency choose their own candidate? Or do you not trust the voters to make these sorts of important decisions?

They can chose members of their own party. If someone is unable to even get membership of the party then they almost certainly do not share the concerns and ideology of the party members in the constituency. The idea of Labour voters getting to vote on a Conservative prospective candidate is utterly ridiculous, which is why US cross voting raises so many eyebrows over here. It has nothing to do with democracy, and a lot to do with sabotaging the other parties chances.

[kentonio]

Under the old rules, Romney would have been untouchable. I don't like Gingrich or Santorum, but I'm glad that their Super PACs have been able to keep the primaries competitive.

Not sure thats true. Would Romney have been able to counter the surge from a sequence of other candidates without the huge money attack ads? Gingrich pretty much had him on the ropes until those TV campaigns.

[Dinner]

The only reason Santorum posed a threat, meanwhile, was because big donors kept his campaign alive when no one else cared at all about him. That would have been impossible with a $2,500 cap.

All four had billionaire donors. In fact Newt's billionaire cut him off after he lost Florida but when Santorum surged and Romney desperately needed someone to split the not Romney vote with Santorum magically Newt found a new billionaire donor and rose from the dead.

[Hauldren Collider]

What's that supposed to prove, Oerdin?

[giblets]

The only reason Santorum posed a threat, meanwhile, was because big donors kept his campaign alive when no one else cared at all about him. That would have been impossible with a $2,500 cap.

So a pawn of the rich was able to challenge a rich man? Oh our system is so wonderful

[giblets]

They can chose members of their own party. If someone is unable to even get membership of the party then they almost certainly do not share the concerns and ideology of the party members in the constituency. The idea of Labour voters getting to vote on a Conservative prospective candidate is utterly ridiculous, which is why US cross voting raises so many eyebrows over here. It has nothing to do with democracy, and a lot to do with sabotaging the other parties chances.

I could be wrong, but I don't think any cross-voting campaign has ever succeeded in getting a significant amount of turnout.

[Dinner]

What's that supposed to prove, Oerdin?

That Romney likely rescued Gingrich just so he could stay in and take a few votes away from Santorum.

[Jon Miller]

They can chose members of their own party. If someone is unable to even get membership of the party then they almost certainly do not share the concerns and ideology of the party members in the constituency. The idea of Labour voters getting to vote on a Conservative prospective candidate is utterly ridiculous, which is why US cross voting raises so many eyebrows over here. It has nothing to do with democracy, and a lot to do with sabotaging the other parties chances.

What if you 'lean' labour but you don't like the labour politicians/actions/etc? Isn't it your duty to try and make it so that labour's opponent is someone who you could vote for?

JM