• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Closed Primaries

DirkTheDeac said:
If only Republicans were more like Democrats they could win elections? That is the lesson?
Click to expand...

Politics shouldnt be like sports. It shouldnt be about which team can beat the other one. Republicans v. Democrats. It should be about putting forward the two best candidates that the whole country likes. Not just the fanatics.
 
bobknightfan said:
I don't understand the point you are trying to make. If Warner or Huntsman had enough support, they would have gotten the nomination. I'm assuming that your scenerio still ends up with only two candidates running in the general election, right? I can see how open primaries might give those guys more space.....but we have several open primaries now, and it hasn't helped guys like that overcome other candidates who were supported by mainstream party voters. And, on the other side, there are obvious disadvantages of open primaries. You seem to be saying that if all the primaries were open, independents could pick the candidates for the two parties....and it just ain't so!

I fought my own battle with the party regulars in 2003-2004. Do you think that if all the primaries were open we could have defeated the regulars & John Kerry for that nomination?

ETA: This seems to be a much bigger problem with the Republicans than with the Democrats.....because the Republican Party today is so much more radically ideologically-oriented than is the Democratic Party today.
Click to expand...

This isnt even about the POTUS. This is a far bigger problem on a local scale. Most counties are decidedly Democrat or Republican. In such cases, the "minority" party in those particular counties have no voice in choosing their candidate. Many of those races are decided in the primaries. It shouldnt matter what party affiliation someone has....they should be allowed to vote for their representatives. Closed primaries disenfranchise voters.
 
"Your scenario is more the product of a local election where voters don't give a fuck or aren't educated about the candidates. That problem is minimized greatly on a national scale. A closed primary disenfranchises voters, period. I thought you were against that?"

There are more elections on the local and state lever than on the national level. It takes less money to fix a State Assembly than it does to fix the Congress. Look what happened with crazy voter ID laws, shutting down early voting, the crazy laws that have closed almost all abortion providers in some states.

Yesterday an OH Legislature committee voted to kill all funding for Planned Parenthood. This would take primary care away from tens of thousands (if not more) Ohio women.

Every state could be easily manipulated and laws written to harm people by the actions of just a few people.

The difference between you like to set up laws in theoretically politically active dreamland. I deal with the real world.



The simple fact of the matter is that a closed primary system keeps parties from needing to adapt to the demands of the electorate. When I took Political Science at Wake we discussed how a majority of people in this country fall more to the right fiscally and more to the left socially. Why does no party represent what the voting public actually wants? An open primary also makes it easier for third parties to rise to prominence (aren't you also in favor of that?).

Absolutely wrong. It allows for a few rich people to totally manipulate the electoral system. New parties don't have the money.

You talk about scenarios where you have single party elections - that happens now all of the time in this country, especially on the local level. Where I lived growing up, everything was republican. The winner of the republican primary always ran unopposed in the general election. Democrats had no say in local politics unless they wanted to forego their right to vote in national primaries. On what level can that possibly make sense? Where I live now the opposite is true. And if it's such a terrible idea, how come people in numerous other countries have this ability? Just let people pick their candidate."

In ALL other democratic countries, there are finite limits on funding and don't allow personal spending of the candidates to exceed those limits. Additionally there are finite amounts of time anyone can campaign.

Are you will to put the rest of those rules in place? You can't part of it.
 
P.S. If you are considering me the most dogmatic, the first thing is I am registered as independent and don't vote in primaries. My position keeps me from doing so. I practice what I preach.

Secondly, it's rather funny that Les would tend to place me in the "dogmatic" camp when he must be there too as he agreed with my plan for public funding of campaigns.
 
RJ do you think that in Ohio if independents could vote in primaries you would get the same whack jobs in the state senate?
 
Since only about 25-35% typically vote in primaries. I don't think it makes any difference at all.

As a lawyer, how are statements against personal interest taken in evidence?

My position eliminates my personal vote in primaries.
 
You don't think the number might be hire if it was semi open?
 
"hire" ? :)

People have a choice. If we choose not to select party, we know the consequences.
 
Fair enough. I chose a party because I wanted to have some choice in who the candidate is.
 
RJKarl said:
Are you will to put the rest of those rules in place? You can't part of it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Now all we need to do is get the SCOTUS on board.

DeaconCav06 said:
Fair enough. I chose a party because I wanted to have some choice in who the candidate is.
Click to expand...

What if you want to have a choice in candidates from different parties at different levels? I am registered independent but consider myself moderate republican leaning. This generally means that I find myself supporting republicans at the state and local level (I live in the northeast), and since the national republicans have moved more toward the right, democrats at the national level. Under that [very common these days] scenario if I am forced to pick a party I am disenfranchised no matter what option I pick, so it's not a choice.
 
wfumike02 said:
Absolutely. Now all we need to do is get the SCOTUS on board.

This is a basic difference between you and I. You think Americans should have barriers put in front of them to prevent them from voting. I think that's disgusting.

What if you want to have a choice in candidates from different parties at different levels? I am registered independent but consider myself moderate republican leaning. This generally means that I find myself supporting republicans at the state and local level (I live in the northeast), and since the national republicans have moved more toward the right, democrats at the national level. Under that [very common these days] scenario if I am forced to pick a party I am disenfranchised no matter what option I pick, so it's not a choice.
Click to expand...

Primaries are run and paid for by the party. If you don't want to be part of either party, it's your choice.
 
Why do you think I believe Americans should have barriers that prevent them from voting? I favor open primaries for precisely the opposite reason.
 
RJKarl said:
Primaries are run and paid for by the party. If you don't want to be part of either party, it's your choice.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, state tax dollars pay for elections to be run. Not only is forcing someone to join a party they may not agree with or forfeit their right to vote violation of a citizen's right to free association and free speech, it disenfranchises voters in many cases. Voters who, through their tax dollars, fund boards of election and the costs of running them.
 
You were talking about the cases about voting being taken to the Supreme Court. they are about putting barriers up to voting.
 
Citizens United will not be challenged until the next POTUS replaces Scalia and Kennedy. As soon as Hillary replaces one, she will start looking for a case to bring up to overturn.

It's a horrible decision. Money is not now nor can ever be considered speech.
 
wfumike02 said:
What if you want to have a choice in candidates from different parties at different levels? I am registered independent but consider myself moderate republican leaning. This generally means that I find myself supporting republicans at the state and local level (I live in the northeast), and since the national republicans have moved more toward the right, democrats at the national level. Under that [very common these days] scenario if I am forced to pick a party I am disenfranchised no matter what option I pick, so it's not a choice.
Click to expand...

That was my problem. I consider myself an independent but lean right. I wanted to at least have some say in the matter.
 
Money isn't speech. How you choose to use your money is symbolic speech. Like burning a draft card.
 
Then the government shouldn't be allowed to stop you from buying pot as it would be how you chose to use your speech. By buying pot you are protesting the law.

Ben Franklin and Tom Paine knew the difference between paid speech and free speech. They thought people in the future would as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top