What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
87 Comments
- unicronband, on 10/10/2007, -10/+38"At long last, state party leaders are showing signs of intelligent life."
Intelligent life in Florida? Buried as inaccurate. - totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26Once more the Democratic Party moves towards snatching defeat from the jaws of victory :P
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22"I'm glad Florida is ***** it up"
We'll, if you're gonna look to a state to completely ***** up an election cycle, Florida is the one to do it! - elvisjulep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14It seems like this is a long time coming. New Hampshire has a law on the books that if any state moves their primary earlier, then the NH legislature will move New Hampshire's in front of it. Iowa is making similar arrangements, so we may end up with a glut of states holding primaries or caucuses on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January and all other states will be forced to move up or be deemed irrelevant, at least in respect to the Presidential nominee.
- swanny89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The primary system is less democratic than the closed caucus system it replaced?
- Nitroadict, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15This is hopefully a sign of things to come. The DNC is death for the future of the democratic party; it would be nice for other state party leaders in other states to find their backbone as well as give the good ol' finger to the DNC.
- hydroplane, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Help us 3rd party candidates, your our only hope...
- IADTatami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I looked all over that website and couldn't find a single penis to review. In fact, I have my doubts that it has anything to do with penises at all.
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Democratic National Committee
- petebot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The primary system is horrible. Nobody votes in it because they think it doesn't count. Half the candidates drop out after New Hampshire and Iowa's primaries, giving the rest of the country no say in who makes it past the primary stage. Every state should vote in the primary on the same day. If there is a tie, there should be a runoff election. Oh, and all election days (congressional and presidential) should be national holidays.
- MaynardJK, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15www.*****.com
- prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I can't believe how idiotic our primary system has become. The fact that Iowa (as just one example) is constantly making candidates commit to ethanol at the very outset of their campaigns makes me wish New York, California, or Michigan would move their primaries up too. How we've gotten to the point where candidates are more or less forced to say "I think burning FOOD has an important part to play in our national energy policy" every four years completely astonishes me.
- dagamer34, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The problem is that later states often get shafted because they never get to choose between candidates as they always drop out after Iowa or New Hampshire if there is a poor showing. Honestly, since Florida is often a key battleground state compared to Iowa and New Hampshire, they definitely feel outraged that they get the short oend of the political stick race after race.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Nitpicking, but quotes belong around things people actually said. That's the whole point of them...
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If we end up having the primary on the same day for all states, money and corporate media will play an even larger role in the nomination process. When the playing field is only a few states for a certain time, it becomes possible for lesser-known candidates to get a boost by doing things "on the ground" that involve actually interacting with normal people rather than just by buying massive amounts of ad time and relying on name identification.
The problem isn't that only a few states begin the process, but that those states are ALWAYS Iowa and New Hampshire. We ought to rotate which states get the early primaries. For example, maybe give Iowa + SC + NH 2008, then give 2012 to Florida + Nevada + Colorado, 2016 to Missouri + Virginia + Alaska, etc.... - epicstruggle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7More states are also doing it. Michigan moved their primary to Jan 5(?), we dont care what either the RNC or the DNC have to say about it. We want some face time with the candidates, and are just tired of our state being quick stops for fund raising and not much else. I believe 2 or 3 other states are in the process of moving their primaries into january.
- scrimaxinc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9you have an extra E to use there boss.....yea that's right, I was bored enough to pick apart your stupid joke.
- PopcornDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6***** 'em all. Just hold the damn primaries on the same day in February in ALL 50 states. Winner take all. Then vote between the two wretches you get in November. Problem solved.
- raitchison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The early primaries pretty much decide who the nominees are, usually the nominations are over and decided before even 10% of the countries population has had a chance to vote for a potential candidate.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"can some one enlighten me?"
Unlikely. - TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Good for them. Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't have the power they have in selecting party nominees. It's about time larger states that are more representative of the country as a whole start to exert some power.
- diggitydoc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6www.youarebothdouchesanddeservetobekilled/byboringeachothertodeath.htm
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"States competing with each other to gain prominence in the primary elections is self-serving and hurting the country as a whole"
Then let Iowa and New Hampshire take their rightful place, which isn't at the beginning of the election process. - joeyjojo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
- allioupe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5why do we have to pay for a primary, shouldn't the DNC fork over money to pay for the primary? same for RNC.. I don't see primaries for the other parties?
- Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4penis to review, which is what I thought it said at first glance.
- joeyjojo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They can't do anything until we start fixing our system and embrace concepts like instant run-off voting.
- s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The party decides which state gets to vote first in a primary. Candidates who are unpopular in the first few states are immediately branded losers by the media, and they drop out before most states get a chance to vote.
- joshua5, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4See what happens when you Digg blogspam! If everybody would just submit the articles from the original news source we wouldn't have this problem of crashing some obscure blog's server running an outdated version of windows.
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI ... - prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4That's quite possibly the best (and most workable) solution to this I've (n)ever heard. Excellent idea.
- Hobofuzz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why don't we just get rid of the ***** partisan committees and just let people vote for who they want to vote for, not who a bunch of other politicians decided we should?
***** the DNC and ***** the RNC! - Veretax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The best way to solve this is have four or five different months with ten primaries each week. Spread out the electoral college so that all the big ones aren't in the same month.
- modestmouse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4After reading your comment and your nickname, I can't imagine it getting any better. I just have to block you.
- HomerS1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
- mieses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3A single primary is easier to manipulate with a concentrated marketing effort. Voters don't get the chance to realize that the "main stream" candidates are not as popular as the media would have us believe.
A single primary provides less feedback. Well funded candidates are able to use the media to create the perception that they are popular.
The results of staggered primaries give voters feedback on reality, which often contradicts the main stream media. - LightPhoenix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Another reason why all the primaries should be on one day.
- defwheezer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeh- Why not California (left), Kansas(kooky right) and New York(mishmash)?? That would be a better gauge of the country than hasbin oakie states like Iowa and NH.
- mieses, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3i.e., we don't all run off the same cliff at the same time
- haterrade, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3you know...staggered primaries might actually be a good thing?
- epicstruggle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Just to be clear moving more states to the front of the line will only mean that candidates with a lot of money will even stand a chance. Less chance of a smaller candidate to breakthrough
- 09F911029D74E, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI ...
- prisoner24601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The idea of having a smaller state be a place where a lesser-known candidate could break out of the pack and get exposure is really great in theory. Unfortunately Iowa (which has had something of a special honor and therefore extraordinary responsibility) hasn't lived up to their duty. Every four years they don't help us "meet the candidates" the way they were supposed to, but instead they just "shake them down" and make every single one of them take the "ethanol pledge" if they want to see the light of day. It's a travesty. If you're a candidate and don't say "I think burning FOOD is a great way to reach energy independence" you can expect to disappear, so our national energy policy is being held hostage to corn farm subsidies. Iowa ought to be ashamed of itself and the fact that other states are now insisting they get to move to the front of the line was inevitable since the farming special interests in the midwest have held this process hostage for decades.
- s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The problem is that primaries aren't held simultaneously, as they should be.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2More info on IRV: http://www.newamerica.net/programs/political_refor ...
- gthrank, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's like saying "let's get rid of all nuclear weapons". Yes, it would be lovely, but it's only feasible if both sides do it simultaneously.
- bubba9999, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does a hefty "Go ***** Yourself, both of you!" count? I couldn't care less about the date of our primary - I vote in it whenever it is. I don't see the point of moving it up, and I don't see the point of the DNC imposing sanctions on people who are caught up in it. If the DNC isn't going to count the vote, then the least that they can do is to send back all of the contributions that Floridians made to enrich their coffers.
- Hobofuzz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Can't get much more multi-racial than California...
- diggtomanjeri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is stupid and Florida is a WATB. Moving more and more state primaries up, especially large states like Florida that cost A LOT of money to campaign in, just stack the deck against smaller candidates. They don't have the money front-loaded as large campaigns do. Stacking so many states up front like this guarantees an insider like Clinton a win as the other candidates won't be able to effectively campaign everywhere due to funds. Let me repeat, this is a stupid petty move by Florida.
- bravo1995, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7www.youdonthavetobeadickaboutit.com/itwasasimplequestion.html
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is