How Voters Think

[Scott Campbell]

We're obviously much better off with our health care system. Canadians are only 11th in the world in life expectancy. USA is...um...well...come on...42nd? WTF!!

It's the bratwurst.

[The Leaper]

I blame part of the health care problems on the cost of higher education. Why universities have increased tuition 10% annually over the last two decades is beyond me. There is so much deadweight at the executive levels of our universities it is laughable. It puts young workers into great amounts of debt, especially in the medical field where it takes 8-10 years of schooling to earn a doctorate.

[hoosier]

I blame part of the health care problems on the cost of higher education. Why universities have increased tuition 10% annually over the last two decades is beyond me. There is so much deadweight at the executive levels of our universities it is laughable. It puts young workers into great amounts of debt, especially in the medical field where it takes 8-10 years of schooling to earn a doctorate.

Have you considered that higher ed institutions might be competing with other institutions in the private sector to attract capable administrators? You want universities to slash their executive payrolls, but what about the typical seven digit salaries for CEOs in the corporate world? In short, universities don't just compete with other universities....

[The Leaper]

Have you considered that higher ed institutions might be competing with other institutions in the private sector to attract capable administrators? You want universities to slash their executive payrolls, but what about the typical seven digit salaries for CEOs in the corporate world? In short, universities don't just compete with other universities....

I'm not going to disagree that executives in all areas of business/education are overpaid by and large. I want universities to stop spending billions of dollars competing with each other with bigger and better...particularly at the undergraduate level, whick provides a very limited service to the real world at this point in time. You learn far more about your field when you actually get a job...so why waste $75k on a four year education? An undergraduate degree that just gets your foot in the door for a first job should be half that cost. Putting everyone in hock because universities want to have building wars to see who can have the most lavish dorms and amenities is useless IMO.

[Harlan Huckleby]

when you actually get a job...so why waste $75k on a four year education? An undergraduate degree that just gets your foot in the door for a first job should be half that cost. Putting everyone in hock because universities want to have building wars to see who can have the most lavish dorms and amenities is useless IMO.

There's more value to a college education than just a first job ticket. It makes a person more interested and interesting. I'd never have the drive to learn that I have now if I didn't get jump-started by college.

When you look at how expensive it is to hire professors and provide all those facilities, I can understand why college is expensive. I really don't think there is much cost-cutting to be done. If you want college costs to come down, you have to raise taxes and fund it at higher level.

Corporate excecutive salaries: I think it is silly to waste energy on executive salaries. It's a free market. Why should I care if they make a lot of money? And the amount of money that corporations pay on executive salaries is not significant compared to their other costs. The issue is strictly about envy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If the nomination goes to the convention floor, anything can happen. If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations.

I think a deadlocked convention is highly unlikely, but it just occurred to me that an obvious choice they might turn to would be Al Gore. He would be acceptable to a broad range of delegates, and would likely accept.

I don't think any of the candidates who were defeated in the primary would be considered.

[Harlan Huckleby]

BTW, read this analysis in "The Fix" blog:

The states in which Edwards is expected to campaign hard, as outlined during the call by former congressman David Bonior (Mich.), an Edwards adviser, are the same that Obama expects to target heavily -- Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Missouri, Minnesota and North Dakota to name a few. Edwards is also making noise in several strong Clinton states -- California being the most prominent -- but it's clear that Edwards is far more likely to overlap with Obama than Clinton over the next eight days of campaigning.

Now it appears that Edwards' focus on the southern and rural states that should be Obama strongholds is designed to weaken Obama more than Clinton.

As a Clinton supporter, I'm not displeased to see Obama lose some delegates. But since the election is truly down to a very close contest between Clinton and Obama, wouldn't it be better to know which candidate the voters actually prefer? I don't like when results get skewed by vanity candidates.

[Joemailman]

If the nomination goes to the convention floor, anything can happen. If a couple of ballots fail to produce a winner, there is the possibility that all the pledged delegates could be released from their obligations.

I think a deadlocked convention is highly unlikely, but it just occurred to me that an obvious choice they might turn to would be Al Gore. He would be acceptable to a broad range of delegates, and would likely accept.

I don't think any of the candidates who were defeated in the primary would be considered.

Here's why I think the Dem nomination could go to the floor. 2025 delegates are needed to be nominated. In the Democratic Party, there are about 850 "super delegates". These are Dem members of the House and Senate, Governors, elected members of the DNC, and other party leaders. They are not pledged to any candidate. Normally they vote for the candidate who won their state's primary, but they are not required to do so. If my math is correct, this means that either Clinton or Obama would have to win about 63% of the delegates allocated from primaries and caucuses to sew up the nomination before the convention. If Clinton and Obama are virtually deadlocked heading into the convention, in essence the "super delegates" will choose the nominee. If either one has a clear advantage in number of delegates, but still short of the nomination, I suspect the "super delegates" will choose that person. If everything is deadlocked, they could try to find someone else that everyone can agree on. I agree that Gore would be a logical choice in that event.

[MJZiggy]

Wouldn't that suck to spend all that money on campaigning only to have them hand the nomination to Gore.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Just read something interesting: the democrats in Florida want to organize a caucus, and the convention would then have to accept the chosen delegates.

Sounds great to me. The idea of not allowing voting in a state is absurd. All they did wrong was move-up their primary to a date no earlier than other primaries. And group punishment - disenfranchising an entire population because of technical violations by party officials - is worse than absurd.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Wouldn't that suck to spend all that money on campaigning only to have them hand the nomination to Gore.

ya, but if they're deadlocked - what are they gonna do, flip a coin? Actually, I would think that delegates not committed to the big two could be swayed.

I have a hunch that a frontrunner is going to come out of Feb 5.

[digitaldean]

So what you're saying is that not every government sponsored health care system sucks? I thought there were a few over in Europe that were pretty good.

I'd suggest a hybrid system where people or employers can purchase insurance plans to provide services beyond what the government will cover. And ya, health care generally works well for people in Europe, they look at us and think we are insane.

Employer-provided health care is just a horrible system. The unintended consequence is that it makes it extremely difficult for people to be entreprenarial, start small businesses.

There needs to be some reform. It's true it does hold back entrepreneurs and startup small businesses.

Without going into great detail, a family member of mine has MS. Like it or not, I am shackled to my present employer due to the health insurance. I can't afford to be without it, but if I went on my own or with a much smaller company the premiums (if I could get coverage at all for being self employed) would be astronomical.

There should be these available options:
1.) Buying pools of multiple companies (even if in different states) should be enabled to allow more choices.
2.) Allow for importation of drugs from Canada.
3.) Allow for interstate commerce for health insurance. If I can buy the same insurance cheaper in another state, then I should be allowed to.
4.) Present all citizens with 2 options
a.) Have a government health care option that you could buy into (or provided for you if you prove you can't afford it)
b.) If option a's coverage doesn't suit you, buy your own on the open market.
5.) Outlaw subsidies/kickbacks to doctors and pharmacies who subscribe certain medication. It's corrupt, leads in some cases to over medication, plus drives up insurance costs because of the over prescribing.

Though I don't like the government running the health care system (e.g., look at how vets were treated at Walter Reed), so little has been done by both sides that we WILL end up with some form of universal system. It's not if, but when.

</rant>

[hoosier]

Sounds great to me. The idea of not allowing voting in a state is absurd. All they did wrong was move-up their primary to a date no earlier than other primaries. And group punishment - disenfranchising an entire population because of technical violations by party officials - is worse than absurd.

Isn't that ("disenfranchisement") basically what happens to states that hold primaries so late in the season that the candidates have almost always been decided by the time they go to the polls?

In any case, I'm not sure you can say a state's voters are being disenfranchised by not having their votes counted in a primary election. Parties aren't obliged by law to hold primaries; they could perfectly well hold a members-only meeting or choose a candidate in a smoke-filled room somewhere in Chicago. National parties organize the selection process and can do damn well pretty much what they please. If the Floridians get too uppity they'll be reduced to irrelevance.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Isn't that ("disenfranchisement") basically what happens to states that hold primaries so late in the season that the candidates have almost always been decided by the time they go to the polls?

Of course it depends on how the election plays out, the later primaries could easily end up being the decisive ones this year.
I think there should (and will be) some reform, rotating the order that primaries occur in the future.

In any case, I'm not sure you can say a state's voters are being disenfranchised by not having their votes counted in a primary election. Parties aren't obliged by law to hold primaries; they could perfectly well hold a members-only meeting or choose a candidate in a smoke-filled room

You are correct in a technical, legalistic sense. There is nothing in our constitution requiring parties to behave democratically. But the parties have to respond to the values and expectations of the people to remain viable, and democracy/fairness is a shared value.
Not allowing people in a state to vote in a primary certainly is disenfranchisement as a practical matter.

If the democratic race is close coming out of February 5, I expect both Michigan & Florida will organize caucuses (cauci? caucatooee?) for March. And I certainly support them, democracy is the American way.

[Harlan Huckleby]

John Edwards is dropping out of the race today. I am relieved. He comes out better by not dragging this out for purposes of political maneuvering. Good man. Impossible to say whether his supporters will fall to Clinton or Obama. They have an Obamaesque anti-status quo bent, yet they also tend to be from Hillary's lower income demographic.

I'm also glad that Guiliani is gone. Since the race really comes down to McCain or Romney, its better to know what the voters really think. This probably gives McCain a little bump. Many pundits are talking like McCain has nomination sewed up now. I look forward to hearing Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, he's cute when he's mad.