I voted for Bernie.
a primary election is not a government election
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
I voted for Bernie.
He didn't have to ask anybody and the party could not have said no. You file for office in the party primary or caucus in each state. If you get enough signatures you get on the ballot. The vote determines how many delegates you get from each state and there is nothing the party can do about it. Neither Sanders or Trump had to meet any test to get their party nomination other than having a majority of delegates.
There are variations from state to state. In the WI case, nonpartisan means voters do not have to be registered with any particular party to vote and the candidates do not run under a party label. They will be elected in the April general election. States are allowed more variation with state offices than federal offices in the November general election.
LA used to have a primary that allowed a person to be elected to office if they got a majority; if not, the top two regardless of party appeared in the general election. The Supreme Court struck down that provision for federal offices (Congress) because the Constitution says a person must be elected in the general election.
Other jurisdictions have systems similar to WI but instead of having a primary the winner of the non-partisan general election must have a majority or there is a run-off election. This exists in Texas city and school board elections. Each jurisdiction determines whether the winner must have a majority or a simple plurality. This sounds just like WI except they don't call it a primary.
Since there are no parties involved the WI primary appears to be a governmental election.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
Cancel 2018.1
New member
I hate to admit this, but I think you're right. Bernie and his supporters have no grounds to complain. On the other hand the DNC should never have allowed Bernie to run in their primary to begin with.
I still think dims are pretty stupid for nominating hrc, the worst person to run for president including Trump since anybody I can remember.
Wealthy contributors certainly backed Hillary if you look at the campaign contribution disclosure sites.
That was my point in post #31
Yes, that was the reason for my last reply. Originally I thought you were just pointing out an election called "nonpartisan" that included a primary--then it hit me later that it was a government election.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm well aware the rich backed Hillary. I have plenty of them that live around me as well. Desh is just lying to herself
I looked to see whether the wealthy law firms in my area were backing Hillary or Obama in 2008. I was surprised to see they were backing Edwards although it is very understandable.
cawacko
Well-known member
To that point, working in real estate I think there were a number of people (on the commercial side at least) in the industry to see a guy with Trump's background as President.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I think Desh is channeling Dixie by about 1/3. Elections are a part of government. How could a primary not be a government election? But there I go again...being logical.
Because most primaries are administered by political parties under party rules. Depending on the state, the state might finance part or all of the primary cost and primary rules (date, type of primary) may be closely regulated by the state or left largely to the party. So, they are essentially party functions and not government with the exceptions noted in the posts.
However, court decisions have struck down certain primary practices. Although the Constitution applies only to governmental functions and not private entities, courts have ruled primaries may not violate certain constitutional principles because they are part of the process of electing governmental officials. For example, the white primary was found unconstitutional.
A few states also have "blanket primaries." The ballot contains the names of call candidates for all parties and all voters vote on the same ballot. In some, the top Democrat and top Republican face each other in the general election and in others it is the top two. [this applies only to direct primaries and not presidential primaries]
Caucuses are no longer controlled by party leaders as they were before the reforms following the 1968 election. Today, a candidate has to be given essentially the same percentage of delegates as the percentage of supporters attending the caucus. Some states have a caucus to select the delegates but the percentage of delegates supporting each candidate is determined in the presidential primary. Democrats do not allow winner take all and delegates must contain "one half of the opposite sex", some younger and minority delegates.
Bernie made it a point to collect from small donors. Not an accident.
True, but Bernie had to rely on smaller donors because Hillary wrapped up most of the larger contributors, especially in the financial area.
Did you say in your opinion? If so, i missed it.. bernie make it a big point from the start. Hillary did not.
Don't you think Bernie did it by necessity? Do you think he could have taken much of the campaign contributions from the large donors, corporations, financial firms? Those people are not going to support Sanders if for no other reason than because they knew he was unlikely to win the party's nomination and he was not friendly to corporations and the financial industry.
The story on the indictments on the Russians said they wanted to attack Hillary and the other candidates but not Trump or Sanders because they supported them.