Time to get off the fence and choose a side? Please read post before voting.

[jgoose71 0]

While watching the news and looking at the candidates last night, I heard something that caught my attention:

All registered voters in New Hampshire can vote in the Republican Primaries. This got me thinking....

We all know as of lately it seems that the only people the 2 parties seem to put up are either far right or far left. They do this because you have to be far right or far left to get the party nomination, it seems. Why is that?

Then I started thinking, is it because as of recently everyone is so disenchanted with politics that they don't want to be affiliated with either party? So they don't register with a party?

My perception as of lately is that if you don't affiliate with a party, you leave the nomination up to the zealots.

New Hampshire, however allows everyone to vote in the primaries. However, this allows Democrats to have a say in the party nomination.... But it's not like a democrat couldn't go out and register republican for an election cycle anyway...

Please vote and feel free to expound on what you think is the nomination problem of both parties

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[SpeedRacer 1]

What do Independents do? There is actually a big chunk of them, like 30% People who choose their own views on each issue independently, instead of towing a party line.

I think you can just switch or join parties temporarily long enough to vote in the primaries. For example, the deadline for registering as a Republican is mid-March. I can do that, then vote in the Maryland Republican primaries in April, then switch back to Independent the next day.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SkyDekker 1,121]

I generally like our (Canadian) system.

Party members elect leaders at party conventions according to party constitutions.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I generally like our (Canadian) system.

Party members elect leaders at party conventions according to party constitutions.

That was prevalent in the US until the post-WWII era. Philosophically, I prefer a closed primary system ("closed" = you must be a registered member of a party to vote in its nominating primary), rather than the convention system, because primaries allow more direct participation by ordinary folk, and not just a series of backrooms filled with hacks and power-brokers. Here's my longer explanation of this:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4234510;search_string=primaries;#4234510

(I don't like open primaries, where you can vote in any party's primary, because that gives too much ability for non-party members to sabotage a party's nominating process by deliberately voting to nominate a weak candidate.)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

because primaries allow more direct participation by ordinary folk, and not just a series of backrooms filled with hacks and power-brokers. Here's my longer explanation of this:

True. Though in a multi party system like we have, there are more options to vote for if we don't like the leader of a specific party. Losing an election is a quick way to lose the leadership of the party as well.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I generally like our (Canadian) system.

Party members elect leaders at party conventions according to party constitutions.

Actually party members do not vote at Canadian conventions, designated electors (delegates) do. The principle differences between that and the US system is that the delegates are nominated in a riding (electoral district) by riding basis, and that they are not committed. I have been to a nominating meeting where the delegates stood up and promised to support a given candidate on the first ballot, but since it is a secret ballot they could be unfaithful.
Provincial parties have in some cases moved away from the convention model and begun electing leaders directly. Here in Alberta the ruling Progressive Conservative party elects their leader on a run off system. All party members vote in the first ballot. The votes are tabulated and the run off ballot is held with the top three candidates from the first ballot being listed on the second one. The two times this has happened the third place candidate has come up the middle.
The first time it happened the candidates were: 1. Big Oil 2. Christian Right and 3. Rural Guy. Between the first and second vote the left of the province encouraged their supporters to join the party to keep the religious guy out. It worked and Rural Guy won. The second time our current premier was selected after coming in third on the first vote. The candidates were less ideologically distinct, but the choice did move to the centre.
So getting back to the OP's point about the parties nominating right/left wing candidates that are not palatable to the general electorate, run off ballots may be something to consider. France of course does this in Presidential elections.

[Southern_Man 0]

I'm against primaries in general (I think Andy's link is to a thread I posted). Actually I'm not against primaries per se, just against the state being involved in setting them up and running them.

Anyhow, Virginia has some interesting developments this primary season:

1. open primary (it always has been) which means you can vote in the primary of any party of your choosing.

2. Republicans are requiring anybody who wants to vote in the Republican primary to sign a loyalty oath, stating that they will support the Republican candidate in November. If you don't sign, you don't get to vote in their primary. I don't have any issue with this as a private organization but since they are using state resources to conduct their private affair, it raises all sorts of entanglement questions with regards to equal protection, voting rights, etc.

3. Restrictive ballot access measures. Only Paul and Romney qualified for the ballot, so if you want to support Gingrich, Huntsman, Perry, or Santorum then you don't really have that option. Just yesterday or today a judge allowed Huntsman, Perry, and Santorum to join Gingrich's lawsuit even though none of them even submitted petitions to get on the ballot. Again, I don't have any issue with the way republicans want to run their own internal party matters but I don't see any reason for the state to be involved in lawsuits over such nonsense.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[pirana 0]

I think they should do away with them entirely (primaries). Maybe then an election cycle would take less than 3 years. Also, an election within the party, only to select candidates from within that party, is a private affair and should be 100% funded by that party with no cost whatsoever to the public.

The whole concept of allowing the public to decide who should represent each party, and then vote between them, is rather redundant.

I prefer a 2-stage election process. An initial election open to all (some criteria would need to be developed so we didn't have 600 candidates), followed by a runoff between just the top 2 (or 3 at the most).

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[scruffy 0]

Quote

(I don't like open primaries, where you can vote in any party's primary, because that gives too much ability for non-party members to sabotage a party's nominating process by deliberately voting to nominate a weak candidate.)

In other cases I think that can be one of the open primaries strong suits, especially when it's applied to state elections. Instead of "sabotaging" an election, members of the other party can go into an open primary knowing full well whoever wins that primary is going to win the general election in that district and pull the votes away from candidates on the fringes and shoulder up someone who is more moderate.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[councilman24 36]

But, I will/should always have the right to change parties. There may be a deadline like registration but I've routinely participated in the primary of choice over the years hear in MI. Only one year did anybody know what I picked. Usually you picked which part of the ballot you wanted to use in the voting booth.

This year in MI you have to fill out a form or some statement which you want. That info will be available a number of days after the primary (90 or so) and for 2 or 3 years. Doesn't stop me from voting in the election and then telling all the fundraising calls I'm a life long independent.

If parties want complete control then they should hold and pay for their own private elections not using public resources or voter registration files. As a City Councilman I know what elections cost. Hmm, are caucuses publicly funded? My impression is no but I don't know. Maybe we need to go to that.

I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE

[DanG 1]

Quote

Also, an election within the party, only to select candidates from within that party, is a private affair and should be 100% funded by that party with no cost whatsoever to the public.

This.

- Dan G

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

I generally like our (Canadian) system.

Party members elect leaders at party conventions according to party constitutions.

That was prevalent in the US until the post-WWII era. Philosophically, I prefer a closed primary system ("closed" = you must be a registered member of a party to vote in its nominating primary), rather than the convention system, because primaries allow more direct participation by ordinary folk, and not just a series of backrooms filled with hacks and power-brokers. Here's my longer explanation of this:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4234510;search_string=primaries;#4234510

(I don't like open primaries, where you can vote in any party's primary, because that gives too much ability for non-party members to sabotage a party's nominating process by deliberately voting to nominate a weak candidate.)

Agree with this. These days it seems that the nominee is determined before the convention which just ends up being a pep rally of sorts. Use to be that candidates and various factions of a party brought their ideas and "planks" to the convention and then hammered out a consensus platform during those meetings. Then, ideally, a candidate that best represented those ideas was nominated.

[wmw999 2,120]

Texas also has open primaries. I honestly think that the polarization of candidates is a function of 24-hour news and of radio talk-show hosts. There's so damn much material being propagated on any given candidate that you can't pick through it all without a guidebook to what he or she is saying.

So you need catchphrase statements (these form the guidebook), and you can tell the candidates apart by the catchphrase statements.

As far as I'm concerned, the radio talk-show hosts have a LOT to do with this, by really pointing out the differentiating factors, and making it seem as though candidates without strong differentiating factors across the board are wrong somehow.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Talk show radio hosts counter and are the oposite of, the main stream media

The only balance we have

So, we can educate our selves or, be blind to one side

I pick being educated

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,120]

I'd submit that radio talk show hosts are now part of the main stream media, with a specific direction to direct opinion, rather than a secondary one.

What they call MSM may well have bias, but it's generally not deliberate, it's a byproduct of their beliefs. Talk show hosts of both sides seem to have definite agendas.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I'd submit that radio talk show hosts are now part of the main stream media, with a specific direction to direct opinion, rather than a secondary one.

What they call MSM may well have bias, but it's generally not deliberate, it's a byproduct of their beliefs. Talk show hosts of both sides seem to have definite agendas.

Wendy P.

I could agree with the first part
But saying what the old MSM did/does is not deliberate is lieing to ones self

they had "beliefs" years ago and it was not as bad as it is today

They have a clear agenda

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,120]

Marc, I have reasonably close relatives who are, or have been, members of MSM. Either there's a huge secret cabal that no one talks about, or it's not deliberate, it's simply a reflection of their beliefs.

That doesn't change any possible bias, but for a lot of them, it's really not a giant plot.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Marc, I have reasonably close relatives who are, or have been, members of MSM. Either there's a huge secret cabal that no one talks about, or it's not deliberate, it's simply a reflection of their beliefs.

That doesn't change any possible bias, but for a lot of them, it's really not a giant plot.

Wendy P.

I dont think it is a plot either

For the most part they just cant help themselves

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What they call MSM...

It doesn't take a Master of Science in Management to be a member of Men who have Sex with Men, even if you attend the Morehouse School of Management and and eat Mechanically Separated Meat while touring the Miami Science Museum. Tell us the truth: You're really a Master-Slave Manipulator, aren't you? Search your Memory-Save-Memory and get back to me.

OK, so much for my morning coffee jolt.

[Andy9o8 0]

Just a poll-wording suggestion: "Everyone should be required to choose a party when registering" should be changed to "Everyone should be required to register with a party in order to vote in that party's primary". (The first wording would, logically, negate a person's ability to register to vote as an independent, which I'm sure was not your intent.)