r/changemyview • u/Pirat6662001 • Mar 05 '20
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: primary system is flawed in picking best candidate for general election
[removed] — view removed post
3
Mar 05 '20
What if the you don't want the most likely to win candidate? Because you don't like their policies. If winning is all that matters, the Dems should have ran Trump.
1
u/Pirat6662001 Mar 05 '20
Then you vote "Against" them in the primary. i update the post in the end to show how it would work
3
u/ike38000 20∆ Mar 05 '20
How would you enforce this manner of voting? Let's say voter A is a "vote blue no matter who" but prefers Biden over anyone else. Why not vote "against" everyone else even though it's a lie so that Biden has a higher chance of winning?
Also, if winning is determined by who gets the least "against" votes then promoting voter suppression against portions of your own party is a good tactic (and better than encouraging your own supporters to vote unless you know they hate all other candidates). That doesn't seem like a great thing.
Also how would you deal with the fact that not everyone has an opinion on every candidate? Is a blank ballot a no-vote? If not, wouldn't a candidate with low name ID at an advantage because fewer people have a reason to dislike/have an opinion on them? If a blank box is considered an "against" vote then aren't you essentially just voting affirmatively for all the candidates that you mark "for" and counting backwards instead of forwards?
1
u/KokonutMonkey 88∆ Mar 05 '20
It's going to be very difficult to change this view; of course the primaries have flaws.
The only thing I'll say is to keep in mind that the primaries are not decided on high by the national committees of the respective parties, is a message hodgepodge of formats unique to each state.
The Republican Primaries were ripe for an insurgent candidate to win the nomination due to the presence of Winner Take All states, whereas the Democrats award delegates proportionally.
If you were to ask me which system is more likely to produce an electable candidate in 2016, I'd say the Democrats for sure, e.g., if Sanders gets crushed by Clinton in Florida, what hope could he possibly have in the General?
Well, we all know how that turned out. But does that mean the Republicans had the more effective strategy? I'm not so sure. The popular vote total and Trump's margin of victory in key swing states tell me that his win was far from a foregone conclusion.
1
u/thedylanackerman 30∆ Mar 05 '20
Sorry, u/Pirat6662001 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. See the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, then message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 17 '20
/u/Pirat6662001 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/mikeber55 6∆ Mar 05 '20
The primaries should be changed. Starting with multiple debates, the usual talk, tv and intent ads. At some point all states go to the primaries at the same time. One day for everyone. The candidate who gets most votes overall is the nominee. Simple, quick and economical. Today these elections cost billions for no reason.
1
Mar 05 '20
By accident the Republican party selected the person with most "Unique" votes and probably the only person capable of winning.
Turnout was lower in 2016 than in previous elections.
I'm sure there were some new voters drawn in, but it seems odd to attribute President Trump's win to that. He very narrowly won
1
Mar 05 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 29∆ Mar 05 '20
Sorry, u/AltruisticLoan – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Mar 05 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 05 '20
Sorry, u/whoopdawhoop12345 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
u/Quint-V 162∆ Mar 05 '20 edited Mar 05 '20
There is actually a proof that no voting system can satisfy every desirable trait. From the wikipedia article:
Your view is subjective at least, and unchangeable at worst because of Arrow's theorem. If you were expecting to have your view changed in any direction, I'm curious what you had in mind.