mikal
Blue Crack Addict
It's not the closed primary, it's the primary registration deadline being 6+ months ahead of the primary.
Yep. I think everyone can agree that 6+ months is unnecessary.
It's not the closed primary, it's the primary registration deadline being 6+ months ahead of the primary.
It's not the closed primary, it's the primary registration deadline being 6+ months ahead of the primary.
I think this is also the reason given by Trump to explain why his children can't actually vote for him.
It's not the closed primary, it's the primary registration deadline being 6+ months ahead of the primary.
just wanted to post this quite long, detailed post i ran across today. I've been vocal that I used to be a Bernie supporter for some time, but now support Hillary.
This is a very all encompassing look at the many reasons I got fed up with Bernie along the way.
I obviously will support Bernie if he is the nom. But this lays out very well why now I am quite annoyed with him.
enjoy.
https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.ixpkcz6an
I've been vocal that I used to be a Bernie supporter for some time, but now support Hillary.
Wow. Long but really good read.
just wanted to post this quite long, detailed post i ran across today. I've been vocal that I used to be a Bernie supporter for some time, but now support Hillary.
I'm sure that article has some spin to it, but I just don't care about Hillary's speeches.
It was nothing illegal, and nothing any other person of power has done before.
The problem I have is the assumption that because someone received $, that they are now bought and paid for by that entity. That Hillary will do Wall St's bidding and evil deeds.
I just don't see it being so black and white. Will some favors be returned, yes. Can we prove any of it? Most likely not.
It's the game, and it's easy to be on the outside screaming in when you refuse to do anything about it. There's a reason every president looks like they've aged 80 years after taking office....it's not a simple job, and idealogy tends to go out the window when you actually have to GOVERN
Obama disagrees with you here.The problem I have is the assumption that because someone received $, that they are now bought and paid for by that entity. That Hillary will do Wall St's bidding and evil deeds.
I just don't see it being so black and white. Will some favors be returned, yes. Can we prove any of it? Most likely not.
I'd say while the 6 month deadline is absolutely absurd, closed primaries aren't necessarily right either.
In a multiparty system? Sure. Closed primaries make sense. In a two party system, it just insists upon "picking a side." It encourages a two party system to thrive. Primaries should be semi-open to independents.
Obama disagrees with you here.
If you don't bother to sign up for the club, you can't vote for the club's treasurer. What's stopping everyone going independent and voting to place the weaker candidate for the other side?
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
I was actually shocked that Trump got registered as a Republican early enough.
This is the weakest and most repeated argument in favor of closed primaries. It's like you just ignored the point I made about how closed primaries encourage this two party system to thrive. Just babbling the wash-rinse-repeat line that everyone uses.
And your argument overall is both condescending and total garbage. If you think conspiring independents will try to sabotage an election... what's stopping republicans from changing parties to vote for the weaker candidate on the other side and do the very same thing?
Lucky, did you not read my post? Your second paragraph is exactly what I was saying.
Like it or not, it's an organization, if you're not willing to identify yourself with that organization why do you feel you have a say in how the organization proceeds.
I'm not willing to label myself D or R, so I don't feel any right to tell them who they should nominate.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
No, it's not. Some semi-open primaries welcome independents to vote, but do not allow individuals registered with other parties to vote.
As it currently stands, the likelihood of sabotage is just as high, if you're suggesting some conspiracy to vote in a lesser candidate. Most people don't think "I'm going to go vote for the other side's weaker candidate," and even if they do... they can currently already do that. Giving independents the ability to vote doesn't change that at all, and it's totally absurd to think that that would be the case.
And "like it or not" is not an argument, so don't use it as one. I'm fully aware of reality. That doesn't make it right. This is an argument against the structure and power of political parties. Blah blah blah George Washington, no political parties. As an independent I'm only given two options due to the consolidation of power from the two party system. Hell yes I should have the right to vote in the primaries without registering.
Either that, or those "organizations" shouldn't have the ability to consolidate power.
I'm really not sure what you are arguing. Back in 2008 Limbaugh tried to get his listeners to change their registration so they could vote for Hillary in the primary and make her the candidate. If all primaries were open they wouldn't have to do that, they would just have to be independent. Then they can do that with every election. I don't know how else to explain.
You get no arguments from me on the two party system, but open primaries is not the answer.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
We all know Bernie is in the pocket of Big Ice Cream.
Show us the Ben and Jerry's speeches!
1. Limbaugh's listeners are typically Republicans, not Independents
2. It's just as easy to register as a Democrat as it is to register as an Independent
So, Rush Limbaugh trying to convince his listeners to be rogue Democrats is essentially the same thing as him trying to convince them to be Independents.
That is, unless of course, you're suggesting that everyone would be an independent without closed primaries? If so, mission accomplished! You've taken the most important step in eliminating the two party system.
Honestly, though, this is totally moot to even be debating. Rush Limbaugh and his little tiny sabotage movement didn't do anything and wouldn't do anything were every primary to be open (a significant amount of them ARE open in some fashion). You can't produce any numbers to suggest that a significant portion of the population has voted in a primary for a candidate that they absolutely in no way shape or form would vote for in November. You can't, because it doesn't really happen.
I don't even know where to
begin :facepalm:
Then don't. Your consistent method of berating my opinion as uneducated or foolish is annoying.
I don't even know where to
begin :facepalm:
Honestly, it has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion. It was your complete misunderstanding, it came off as being purposely obtuse.
Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference