election knowledge 101
naturalplastic wrote:
ollychan wrote:
im esl . Pls explain to me within three succinct sentences .
.
It aint that hard.
Elections are like a pyramid. There is a wide base of many candidates at the bottom, and one president who wins the office at the top. The primaries exist to eliminate the many rival candidates as the election progresses upward.
Right ,which is that 1) i can vote for President Sanders in the primary 2) then President Sanders or President Kokesh during the general , 3) and President Kokesh during the presidential ?
ollychan wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
ollychan wrote:
im esl . Pls explain to me within three succinct sentences .
.
It aint that hard.
Elections are like a pyramid. There is a wide base of many candidates at the bottom, and one president who wins the office at the top. The primaries exist to eliminate the many rival candidates as the election progresses upward.
Right ,which is that 1) i can vote for President Sanders in the primary 2) then President Sanders or President Kokesh during the general , 3) and President Kokesh during the presidential ?
I am pretty sure that what the OP means by the "General Election" is the same thing as "the Presidential Election".
So if you're a Republican and a "Never Trumper" you could vote against Trump in the Primary by voting for Kasich or Cruz, or whomever, and then hold your Republican nose and vote for Hillary in the General/presidential because you are convinced that Trump is even worse. Which was probably a common occurrence in the last general.
Or if you're a Dem you could vote for Sanders in the Primary, and then vote for the lesser of the two remaining weevils (Hillary instead of Donald) in the General because Sanders was eliminated. Also presumably common in the 16 election.
Or ( and I didn't wanna confuse the OP by going into local variations of the US system) if you live in a state with open primaries (that allow voters of either party to vote in the primaries of either party) you have two strategic options: vote for the least bad person of the opposite party because the opposite party to your's might win, or you could vote for the worst (ie least likely to win) candidate of the other party to deliberately sabotage the other party. Vote for the village idiot and ex convict pedophile embezzler who is running for office in the other party so that that person gets nominated to run against the strong candidate of your party to guarantee your person wins in the general.
Vote for one and one only is the worst possible system. With systems like Approval, STAR, or Ranked Choice, the voter can express preferences.
In a Presidential Primary, if a candidate wants to vote against someone they think is polarizing and would lose, that voter could select everyone else.
In any general election where plurality rules and someone wins with less than 50% (sometimes a lot less), it means a majority voted against them. Is this candidate an acceptable substitute or an anathama? You had the chance to ask them while they were in the voting booth--why didn't you?
