One Small Step Against the Duopoly

[JohnStOnge]

I don't see any problem with Parties having closed primaries. I think they should be able to choose the candidate that represents their Party through whatever procedure they wish. And I also happen to think that, if they are going to have primaries at all, open primaries make no sense.

If you're not a Democrat, why should you be entitled to participate in picking the Democrat nominee? If you're not a Republican....? Now, once you get to election that's actually going to select who serves everybody eligible to vote should have the right to vote. But all that's going on in primaries is Parties selecting who is going to represent them.

If you want to vote in a Party primary, become a member of that Party.

[Ivytalk]

I don't see any problem with Parties having closed primaries. I think they should be able to choose the candidate that represents their Party through whatever procedure they wish. And I also happen to think that, if they are going to have primaries at all, closed primaries make no sense.

If you're not a Democrat, why should you be entitled to participate in picking the Democrat nominee? If you're not a Republican....? Now, once you get to election that's actually going to select who serves everybody eligible to vote should have the right to vote. But all that's going on in primaries is Parties selecting who is going to represent them.

If you want to vote in a Party primary, become a member of that Party.

John, your post is internally inconsistent. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, you say that "closed primaries make no sense." Then, in the second and third paragraphs, you reverse that. So what gives?

[kalm]

I don't see any problem with Parties having closed primaries. I think they should be able to choose the candidate that represents their Party through whatever procedure they wish. And I also happen to think that, if they are going to have primaries at all, closed primaries make no sense.

If you're not a Democrat, why should you be entitled to participate in picking the Democrat nominee? If you're not a Republican....? Now, once you get to election that's actually going to select who serves everybody eligible to vote should have the right to vote. But all that's going on in primaries is Parties selecting who is going to represent them.

If you want to vote in a Party primary, become a member of that Party.

Sure.

But isn't it the state that's determining whether or not primaries are closed? Isn't it with the state that you choose your affiliation?

[JohnStOnge]

I don't see any problem with Parties having closed primaries. I think they should be able to choose the candidate that represents their Party through whatever procedure they wish. And I also happen to think that, if they are going to have primaries at all, closed primaries make no sense.

If you're not a Democrat, why should you be entitled to participate in picking the Democrat nominee? If you're not a Republican....? Now, once you get to election that's actually going to select who serves everybody eligible to vote should have the right to vote. But all that's going on in primaries is Parties selecting who is going to represent them.

If you want to vote in a Party primary, become a member of that Party.

Sure.

But isn't it the state that's determining whether or not primaries are closed? Isn't it with the state that you choose your affiliation?

Yes it is and the State does foot the bill. That's a good point.

Maybe the solution is to put an end to that. Maybe the solution is to say, "OK Parties. You choose your nominee. But no taxpayer funding is going to be devoted to that."

If we had done that 10 years ago we probably wouldn't have an absolute atrocity as President right now because the Republican Party would have had to design a Party process to choose its nominee. And it probably would've made a more rational decision.

[kalm]

Sure.

But isn't it the state that's determining whether or not primaries are closed? Isn't it with the state that you choose your affiliation?

Yes it is and the State does foot the bill. That's a good point.

Maybe the solution is to put an end to that. Maybe the solution is to say, "OK Parties. You choose your nominee. But no taxpayer funding is going to be devoted to that."

If we had done that 10 years ago we probably wouldn't have an absolute atrocity as President right now because the Republican Party would have had to design a Party process to choose its nominee. And it probably would've made a more rationale decision.

That's one way to diminish the power of the duopoly.

[Ivytalk]

Sure.

But isn't it the state that's determining whether or not primaries are closed? Isn't it with the state that you choose your affiliation?

Yes it is and the State does foot the bill. That's a good point.

Maybe the solution is to put an end to that. Maybe the solution is to say, "OK Parties. You choose your nominee. But no taxpayer funding is going to be devoted to that."

If we had done that 10 years ago we probably wouldn't have an absolute atrocity as President right now because the Republican Party would have had to design a Party process to choose its nominee. And it probably would've made a more rational decision.

Well, we could turn back the clock to the days of the "smoke-filled room" and get rid of primaries altogether. Would that work better?

I read a good book about the 1912 Presidential election. Teddy Roosevelt won most of the states with primaries, but Taft won enough of the states with party conventions to "steal" the nomination. That resulted in TR running as the "Bull Moose" nominee, thereby splitting the Republican vote and throwing the election to that absolute atrocity Woodrow Wilson.

[houndawg]

Time to bring in JSO as a guest lecturer.

Time for you to shut the Fvck up!

You're afraid that he'll seem to make sense after the bong rips.

[houndawg]

I'm all about voting "The Fringe Ticket" these last few years...
Militant Social Justice has chased me away from the lunacy that has infected the Left

So does that mean you've developed a soft-on for Jill Stein?? She does the lunacy thing pretty well.

Soft on? I think she'd be every bit as entertaining as Trump in her own way.

I bet she'd enjoy good session with the ol' turkey neck, too.

[kalm]

Yes it is and the State does foot the bill. That's a good point.

Maybe the solution is to put an end to that. Maybe the solution is to say, "OK Parties. You choose your nominee. But no taxpayer funding is going to be devoted to that."

If we had done that 10 years ago we probably wouldn't have an absolute atrocity as President right now because the Republican Party would have had to design a Party process to choose its nominee. And it probably would've made a more rational decision.

Well, we could turn back the clock to the days of the "smoke-filled room" and get rid of primaries altogether. Would that work better?

I read a good book about the 1912 Presidential election. Teddy Roosevelt won most of the states with primaries, but Taft won enough of the states with party conventions to "steal" the nomination. That resulted in TR running as the "Bull Moose" nominee, thereby splitting the Republican vote and throwing the election to that absolute atrocity Woodrow Wilson.

If the parties are private organizations, they should be left alone to decide and fund their own primaries. If that means smoke-filled rooms, so be it. Leave the state out of it other than to register voters and administer and fund the general election.

Kalm...a better libertarian than Ivytalk....

[Ivytalk]

Well, we could turn back the clock to the days of the "smoke-filled room" and get rid of primaries altogether. Would that work better?

I read a good book about the 1912 Presidential election. Teddy Roosevelt won most of the states with primaries, but Taft won enough of the states with party conventions to "steal" the nomination. That resulted in TR running as the "Bull Moose" nominee, thereby splitting the Republican vote and throwing the election to that absolute atrocity Woodrow Wilson.

If the parties are private organizations, they should be left alone to decide and fund their own primaries. If that means smoke-filled rooms, so be it. Leave the state out of it other than to register voters and administer and fund the general election.

Kalm...a better libertarian than Ivytalk....

Hardly. This thread started with a discussion of closed primaries, which best adhere to free association principles. If parties want to have caucuses instead of primaries, that's fine, too.

[kalm]

If the parties are private organizations, they should be left alone to decide and fund their own primaries. If that means smoke-filled rooms, so be it. Leave the state out of it other than to register voters and administer and fund the general election.

Kalm...a better libertarian than Ivytalk....

Hardly. This thread started with a discussion of closed primaries, which best adhere to free association principles. If parties want to have caucuses instead of primaries, that's fine, too.

Yes and it's evolved now. If the state funds primaries and is responsible for party registration is that more or less government?

[Ivytalk]

Hardly. This thread started with a discussion of closed primaries, which best adhere to free association principles. If parties want to have caucuses instead of primaries, that's fine, too.

Yes and it's evolved now. If the state funds primaries and is responsible for party registration is that more or less government?

Do you think the state has any role to play in voter registration?

[kalm]

Yes and it's evolved now. If the state funds primaries and is responsible for party registration is that more or less government?

Do you think the state has any role to play in voter registration?

Yes, but why party registration?

[Ivytalk]

Do you think the state has any role to play in voter registration?

Yes, but why party registration?

So you favor just a state-sponsored list of registered voters without showing party affiliations?

[JohnStOnge]

I read a good book about the 1912 Presidential election. Teddy Roosevelt won most of the states with primaries, but Taft won enough of the states with party conventions to "steal" the nomination. That resulted in TR running as the "Bull Moose" nominee, thereby splitting the Republican vote and throwing the election to that absolute atrocity Woodrow Wilson.

However big an atrocity Woodrow Wilson was, we've got a bigger one in the Oval Office right now and he's in there because of the system of primaries.

Regardless, though, Kalm has a good point. Taxpayers should not be funding political party processes for choosing their nominees. However it's done, taxpayers shouldn't be funding it.

[kalm]

Yes, but why party registration?

So you favor just a state-sponsored list of registered voters without showing party affiliations?

I'd have to look into further, but if I was a libertarian/small government conservative, then yes...

[Ivytalk]

So you favor just a state-sponsored list of registered voters without showing party affiliations?

I'd have to look into further, but if I was a libertarian/small government conservative, then yes...

But you're not,so it doesn't matter.

[Ivytalk]

I read a good book about the 1912 Presidential election. Teddy Roosevelt won most of the states with primaries, but Taft won enough of the states with party conventions to "steal" the nomination. That resulted in TR running as the "Bull Moose" nominee, thereby splitting the Republican vote and throwing the election to that absolute atrocity Woodrow Wilson.

However big an atrocity Woodrow Wilson was, we've got a bigger one in the Oval Office right now and he's in there because of the system of primaries.

Regardless, though, Kalm has a good point. Taxpayers should not be funding political party processes for choosing their nominees. However it's done, taxpayers shouldn't be funding it.

You're absolutely right. Let the parties continue to screw it up on their own dime. For a good laugh (if you're capable of that function), read P. J. O'Rourke's How the Hell Did This Happen? The Election of 2016.

[kalm]

I'd have to look into further, but if I was a libertarian/small government conservative, then yes...

But you're not,so it doesn't matter.

I am on some things and here you are still arguing about something that doesn't matter.

[Ivytalk]

Interesting county LP meeting last night. Topics of discussion included a) a Delaware “splinter” libertarian group , b) the latest on the DE cannabis legalization fight , c) a recent 3-2 DE Supreme Court decision that invalidated regulations banning the use of firearms in DE state parks , and d) transgender bathrooms for school children .

[CID1990]

Interesting county LP meeting last night. Topics of discussion included a) a Delaware “splinter” libertarian group , b) the latest on the DE cannabis legalization fight , c) a recent 3-2 DE Supreme Court decision that invalidated regulations banning the use of firearms in DE state parks , and d) transgender bathrooms for school children .

Part (a) is exactly what the LP needs - to be even further diluted

its like a splinter of a splinter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Interesting county LP meeting last night. Topics of discussion included a) a Delaware “splinter” libertarian group , b) the latest on the DE cannabis legalization fight , c) a recent 3-2 DE Supreme Court decision that invalidated regulations banning the use of firearms in DE state parks , and d) transgender bathrooms for school children .

Part (a) is exactly what the LP needs - to be even further diluted

its like a splinter of a splinter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Judean People’s Front, or the Popular Front of Judea?

[JohnStOnge]

I don't see any problem with Parties having closed primaries. I think they should be able to choose the candidate that represents their Party through whatever procedure they wish. And I also happen to think that, if they are going to have primaries at all, closed primaries make no sense.

If you're not a Democrat, why should you be entitled to participate in picking the Democrat nominee? If you're not a Republican....? Now, once you get to election that's actually going to select who serves everybody eligible to vote should have the right to vote. But all that's going on in primaries is Parties selecting who is going to represent them.

If you want to vote in a Party primary, become a member of that Party.

John, your post is internally inconsistent. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, you say that "closed primaries make no sense." Then, in the second and third paragraphs, you reverse that. So what gives?

Yes I just saw that as I revisited this thread just before I got to your post and changed it. I made a typo. I meant to type "open primaries make no sense."

[CID1990]

John, your post is internally inconsistent. In the last sentence of the first paragraph, you say that "closed primaries make no sense." Then, in the second and third paragraphs, you reverse that. So what gives?

Yes I just saw that as I revisited this thread just before I got to your post and changed it. I made a typo. I meant to type "open primaries make no sense."

I'm just impressed anyone around here is still reading your posts to that fine amount of detail.

[Chizzang]

Yes I just saw that as I revisited this thread just before I got to your post and changed it. I made a typo. I meant to type "open primaries make no sense."

I'm just impressed anyone around here is still reading your posts to that fine amount of detail.

John is one if this boards finest posters...
I'm part of his splinter faction of a splinter

It's just me (and myself)