I'm wondering what you guys think. I'm completely uneducated on the matter. Someone educate me.

I'm going to skip over all the candidates and go straight to Palin because I think she's the most interesting to talk about in a quick nutshell.

I think it's fascinating that more people (myself included) know more about Palin than they do about McCain. Palin -- NOT McCain -- had the second-most-watched speech of the national conventions (behind Obama).

I hear people railing on her because her daughter is teen-preggo and another kid of hers is down-syndrome'd, but I really don't see what that has to do w anything. I care about both of these things as much as I care about Clinton having an affair -- which is, to say, NOT AT ALL.

I like her views/history on cutting government spending, but disagree with much of her social-conservatism.

I also think that the republicans picked her based on the democrats picking Biden. I don't understand why this isn't more of a rock-paper-scissors type throw where both parties announce at the same time. Seems more fair. Anyone know how this works?

With regard to the last question, the VP is usually announced at or near the convention. The gop had its convention second.

I motion that both parties hold their conventions simultaneously.
I second my motion.
I do whatever it takes to make it open for voting.
I vote yea.
I close the vote.

Lets get this party started!

I vote we abolish political parties and make each candidate actually define their views and make a stand.

I also propose that utah remove the option of voting straight "Republican" or "Democrat" by checking a single box on the first page of the ballot. That is the most absurd thing I have ever seen.

I second the vote for abolishing parties!!

New thing for Washington (state): http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/To ... ryFAQ.aspx

Although it does not apply to Presidential stuff, I thought I would throw it in here as an interesting aside (yes, you can beat me for going a little off topic).

I don't get it. Explain it in idiot terms?

Is it safe to assume what you don't get is the "top-two" system in Washington, or are you referring to something else?

Assuming you are referring to our brand-spanking new system here:

Instead of having to choose a party, and then vote for your favorite Republican or Democrat (respective to the party you chose) to move on to the general election, everyone gets to vote (regardless of party affiliation) for their favorite person to move on to the general election. The two most popular (yes, as with most things in life, it's a popularity contest) move on to the general election. So, it is possible that you could get two Republicans, two Democrats, two Independents, two Fascists, whatever else, vying for election.

I don't remember exactly which positions are voted this way, but some are restricted.

I like it because I get to vote in the primaries (no forced/false party affiliation just to be able to vote) and because, theoretically, you get the best two instead of one from the Dems and one from the Reps (can you shorten Republicans like that... I've never seen it).

And, that is what I know about that topic.

Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to both, but I generally like whatever minimizes party bullcrap.

We have a winner!!!

2 rounds of voting. Everyone is in the first round, and the top 3 move to the final round. The first round would be in June, and the second round in November. On some specified date in July, each candidate would have to announce the VP. Also, no party affiliations are allowed on the ballots. If parties want to have additional primaries beyond that, that is their deal, but DON'T GIVE THEM ANY TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO SUPPORT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let the parties fight internally all they want, so long as they don't use my money.

Who is with me?

Count me in.

But, I think we should also address campaigning, campaign funds, etc. What do you propose to minimize "special interest" group crap? Would you do anything about the silly, childish name-calling/tattle-taling/libel? It's one thing to point out important information, and another entirely to twist the truth to suit your purposes.