On October 4, the seven candidates for President of Ireland held a televised debate. This story about that debate was written just as the debate was beginning.
If the United States held inclusive general election presidential debates, and invited every candidate who was on the ballot in enough states to theoretically be elected, there would never have been a U.S. presidential election with a number of candidates greater than seven who would have been eligible for such debates. In 2008 and 2004 there would have been six such candidates.
Pingback: Ireland Holds 7-Candidate Presidential Debate | Independent Political Report
In Ireland, a candidate must have the support of 20 members of parliament (Oireachtas) or support from 4 county or city councils.
If a similar system were used in the USA, it is unlikely that there would be more than two candidates.
In Ireland, the presidential election has not been held a number of times because there was only one candidate. There may be more candidates this time because of the utter collapse of Fianna Fail, which is not nominating a candidate.
The good thing about the Irish system is that all voters will receive the same ballot, unlike the misguided NPV scheme.
A solution that would balance the Electoral College and National Popular Vote would be interesting! I’m thinking of a proposal this same instant!
3 –
Jimbo, following you around is like following a circus parade. Constantly cleaning up elephant droppings.
Can you produce a sample of the uniform ballot that is used under the current EC system?
What a tool…
#4 Boring Scrapple,
Why the personal animus?
By “EC” do you mean European Council or Electoral College? The president of the European Council is not popularly elected, though there have been suggestions that he should be.
There is no such thing as a national popular vote for president of the USA, therefore there is no need for a uniform ballot, nominating procedures, voter qualification, voting periods, voting procedures, canvassing and recount procedures.
5 –
I only call you a tool because that’s the role you play on this site re: the NPV. A Republican tool. A device. An implement.
A…well, a “tool.”
So please, Jimbo, take no personal offense from what are merely factual observations.
Your last paragraph is an example, and you take this tack with virtually all of your posts regarding the NPV. You erect one straw man after another (many conveniently grouped in your final paragraph above) to oppose the NPV. The shared characteristic of all of them is that somehow the NPV is invalidated because it does not address inconsistencies in the voting procedures of the various states.
My response: So what?
If members of the NPV compact choose to count popular votes in the 50 states to determine the candidate which receives a plurality nationwide, and they do so recognizing the fact that the manner in which individual states recognize voters and votes varies widely from state to state, there is nevertheless nothing whatsoever wrong with that, except for the fact that you, as a Republican tool, don’t like the idea of the NPV upsetting your political applecart. So you throw out these red herrings in desperate opposition.
Now…if you want to find some common ground, here it is. I think there OUGHT to be a “uniform ballot, nominating procedures, voter qualification, voting periods, voting procedures, canvassing and recount procedures.” I do. And I’d like to think that after we institute the NPV we can in turn a) rid ourselves of the arcane, ludicrous, antiquated, thoroughly stupid EC (not the European Council…try to keep up here, Jimbo) and b) THEN we can move on to those other matters. But there’s no reason whatsoever that members of the NPV compact can count popular votes nationwide without attending to those matters first.
Cheers,
Your daddy.
Burple Spurple,
In your 2nd to last paragraph you seem to confuse a couple of issues.
Let’s assume that it is legal for a State to enter into a compact where the rights of its citizens are diminished (for example, California agrees to count votes from the District of Columbia, even though the District of Columbia regularly dumps ballots cast for Libertarian candidates in the Potomac River; even though you would surely agree that if San Francisco county were to dump Libertarian ballots in San Francisco Bay that it would violate equal protection and the California Constitution). But we’ll assume for the sake of argument that such an agreement or “compact” is legal.
You appear to argue that if something is legal, that there is nothing wrong with it, and if it is legal it is a good idea.
The pamphlet of the NPV schemers goes into great depth about the legality of interstate compacts, but completely ignores the 1880 and 1960 presidential elections, two elections where there are real issues as to which candidate received the most popular votes.
The NPV schemers appear to be lawyers, who get so sucked into examining the legal issues, forget to examine the basic practicalities.
In your last paragraph, you are basically arguing after the NPV scheme fails and fails badly, that then we can fix it up like was done after the 1800/1 election. Don’t you Democrats learn from history?
One big election with a candidate per party, independents and a candidate for each faction within the major parties.
Just imagine a ballot with a liberal Democrat, moderate Democrat, conservative Democrat, liberal Republican, moderate Republican, conservative Republican, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Green and independent.