This is Classic.... Fred Thompson finishes behind Write-in Votes in NH!

Damocles said:
That is part of it, and how it was decided. However, Political Parties are public entities so you could not exclude people because of race. You can however exclude people because they belong to a different party.
Click to expand...

But what about A person without a Party ?
 
uscitizen said:
But what about A person without a Party ?
Click to expand...

The Primary process is a private process. There is no person being elected in any way to public office. It is parties deciding who to run, and putting them through the election process before any election actually occurs.

These are essentially like Lodge votes. You can vote for the member of the Lodge that you want to see run in the general.

They're not about an office, they're about a private organization's selection of a candidate.
 
Beefy said:
The Primary process is a private process. There is no person being elected in any way to public office. It is parties deciding who to run, and putting them through the election process before any election actually occurs.

These are essentially like Lodge votes. You can vote for the member of the Lodge that you want to see run in the general.

They're not about an office, they're about a private organization's selection of a candidate.
Click to expand...
Correct, but its a screwed up system, and I don't have a possible solution to offer. :o
 
Watermark said:
I think that if the people of the state want parties to use open or blanket primaries, then any party that does not do so should have to pay for the election... as a private entity. Or they should hold a convention. If the taxpayers are paying for something, they have a right to say so in the matter.
Click to expand...
The party does pay for their assemblies.
 
Damocles said:
Once again. They are allowed to declare for a party. If they do not wish to, then there is little to vote for or against at a Primary.
Click to expand...

Some states allow people without a party to vote in any primary they wish, in which case there's no reason not to register as an independent.

Others allow independents to vote on nothing, in which case there is no reason to register as an independent.
 
Watermark said:
I don't know of many states where the party self-finances the primary.
Click to expand...
Primaries are different. That is what the taxpayers choose. In states without primaries you will find the "caucus" system working. That the taxpayers chose to have a system of primaries should not reflect negatively on the party nor intrude on their right to assemble.
 
Watermark said:
Some states allow people without a party to vote in any primary they wish, in which case there's no reason not to register as an independent.

Others allow independents to vote on nothing, in which case there is no reason to register as an independent.
Click to expand...
One more time. For the Emo Crowd. In the future this won't be allowed as courts have ruled that the parties can exclude people because of the right to assemble.
 
Damocles said:
One more time. For the Emo Crowd. In the future this won't be allowed as courts have ruled that the parties can exclude people because of the right to assemble.
Click to expand...

A few stupid courts have ruled that the original system used 200 years ago, the open primary system, is unconstitutional. None have found that a semi-closed primary system is unconstitutional. This is fucking problem with you. You rant on and on about something YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IGNORANT OF AS IF IT WERE AN INDISPUTABLE FACT.
 
Damocles said:
Primaries are different. That is what the taxpayers choose. In states without primaries you will find the "caucus" system working. That the taxpayers chose to have a system of primaries should not reflect negatively on the party nor intrude on their right to assemble.
Click to expand...

Are you deliberately acting like an ignorant fuckwad today Damo?
 
Watermark said:
A few stupid courts have ruled that the original system used 200 years ago, the open primary system, is unconstitutional. None have found that a semi-closed primary system is unconstitutional. This is fucking problem with you. You rant on and on about something YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IGNORANT OF AS IF IT WERE AN INDISPUTABLE FACT.
Click to expand...
The system used 200 years ago? Before parties existed? Come on H2O, surely you have a better argument than that. The Right to Assemble may have some repercussions that people didn't expect. Just as the right to free speech sometimes gets annoying. Or the right of the people to own and bear arms seems to be in the way of the agenda of others. It doesn't change the reality of the situation. And the SCOTUS refused to hear the arguments after this was decided by the courts, upholding the decision.

The reality is, as the parties in those states decide to sue for their right, the states will change that policy. Look into it, H2O, you will find that I was not "ignorant" after all. Look at the states that have changed to a closed system, find out why it happened.
 
Damocles said:
The system used 200 years ago? Before parties existed? Come on H2O, surely you have a better argument than that. The Right to Assemble may have some repercussions that people didn't expect. Just as the right to free speech sometimes gets annoying. Or the right of the people to own and bear arms seems to be in the way of the agenda of others. It doesn't change the reality of the situation. And the SCOTUS refused to hear the arguments after this was decided by the courts, upholding the decision.

The reality is, as the parties in those states decide to sue for their right, the states will change that policy. Look into it, H2O, you will find that I was not "ignorant" after all. Look at the states that have changed to a closed system, find out why it happened.
Click to expand...

Unexpected consequences? Like forcing the taxpayers to adopt and pay for an electoral system they don't want?
 
Watermark said:
Unexpected consequences? Like forcing the taxpayers to adopt and pay for an electoral system they don't want?
Click to expand...
Yes, like that. Again. You are ignoring the actual cases of the courts that were upheld by fiat from the SCOTUS that forced some states to close their primaries to outside parties. They did rule that you can, if registered independant, declare for a party and vote (thus not completely closed), but they can definitely close the primary to those outside their party. You will see more of them go closed because of this. Democrats don't like Republicans choosing their candidates for some reason.
 
I don't speak to your wish for a totally open primary, I speak to the reality of what happened and will happen in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top