American Citizen Taxpayers Are Being Denied Their Right To Vote

Amendments 15, 19, 24 & 26 of the Constitution all guarantee that citizens of the United States the right to vote.

The duopoly Republican and Democrat primary elections cost the taxpayers 400 million dollars every primary season. http://ivn.us/2013/03/25/partisan-primaries-cost-taxpayers-400-million-last-year/

They use taxpayer’s facilities/buildings for their party elections. They use the taxpayer’s utilities for their party elections. They even have the taxpayers pay for printing up their party ballots and or they use the taxpayer’s voting machinery.

Since no American citizen can be denied the right to vote and American citizens are taxpayers footing the bill for the duopoly’s primary elections, why do some States have election laws for primary elections that deny American citizens the right to vote in a particular primary election if they’re not registered as a member of the particular political party? Isn’t that just more evidence of the duopoly Republican and Democrat party’s authoritarian conspiracy to bilk the taxpayers for their corrupt duopoly dictatorship and total control of the American election process?

Why shouldn’t every American citizen have the right and legal availability to vote in every election for candidates in both duopoly parties?

Why do American citizens allow the duopoly dictators to get away with using taxpayer’s property and extort taxpayers for the financing of their corrupt party operations that deny some American citizen taxpayers their right to vote?

 

some people want to turn rights into privileges by saying you have to have a privilege to have a right

 

we chose to have a system where we elect representatives so we need to pay for it.

 

How does that justify taxpayers being bilked for PARTY primary elections? Why do we even need political parties? Why can't political parties pay for their own systems for choosing who they want to be their candidates? Why aren't taxpayers being bilked to pay for the number of third party candidate selection processes?

 

Because as a Democrat or a Republican you want to be able to vote for the person that you want to represent your party........without the possibility that an organized effort can be made (from the opposing side) to elect a person that sucks and will lose the over all election.

Some states allow independents to vote for either party though. Maybe you could look into this option in your state.

 

We are a two party system, not a parliamentary system. All we pay for is the basic functions of voting, everything else, including debates, are paid for by the parties......not sure what you really want here. Do you want a political party to be in control of the voting machines?

Lol

 

Because the parties get to decide who gets to vote in the primaries of those particular parties. The libertarians do much the same. So do other parties. The trick is getting on the general election ballot.

 

That's simple. All you need are signatures and the fees. There are companies you can hire to gather the signatures.

 

The trick is to get enough signatures in the required amount of time when you know every signature will be challenged in court by the major party apparatus.

 

As I said, there are companies that do this for you. They always get more signatures than required to offset the challenges.

 

I suggest you read the following it may clear your head.....Obviously you would like to vote, however you were either asleep when this was taught in school, or just prefer to remain uninformed.

State Primary Election Types - National Conference of ...
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/primary-types.aspx
State Primary Election Types. ... In either case, only voters who are registered as members of a political party ... Some states allow voters to cross party lines to ...

The manner in which party primary elections are conducted varies widely from state to state. Most primaries can be categorized as either open, closed or top-two. In other states, the primary type does not fall neatly into a category, but may represent a hybrid of these types.

Open Primaries
Eleven states operate open primaries, which permit any registered voter to cast a vote in a primary, regardless of his or her political affiliation. This means that a Democrat could "cross over” and cast a vote in the Republican primary, or vice versa, and an unaffiliated voter can choose either major party's primary.
Proponents say that this system gives voters maximum flexibility because they can cross party lines. Opponents counter that this system dilutes a political party’s ability to nominate its own candidate without interference from non-members

Closed Primaries
Eleven states operate closed primary elections or caucuses. In either case, only voters who are registered as members of a political party prior to the primary date may participate in the nomination process for its candidates.
Proponents say that closed systems contribute to a strong party organization. Opponents note that independent or unaffiliated voters are excluded from the process.

 

Closed primaries is the only fair way to do it to keep cheating down. If you have open primaries, it is possible to get hundreds, or thousands to vote for a candidate of the other party they know hasn't a chance in hell of beating their own candidate. The trick is to get enough of your party members to cross over and vote for that one, which could assure a victory for your side.

 

`
`
Both parties are "for profit" companies. Their first and only loyalty is to their own profitability. There is nothing in the constitution that mentions political parties, in fact, they are actually unnecessary.

 

Then please tell me why the libertarians are seldom on the ballot in more than a handful of states.

 

Because political parties are not part of the government, and primary elections are the way political parties choose their candidates.

You are not electing a person when you vote in a primary. In most states, only the registered members of that party choose the candidates of that party, which is as it should be.

 

This is correct. "Party politics" rules are not the laws of any government. They are simply rules written by the parties themselves. And always a mind blow for me is the Democratic party's "super delegate" concept and the Republicans "pledged delegate" system. Both of these mechanisms are designed to "override" the voters' decisions if the party elders believe a error in judgement has been made.

Apparently, Mr. Trump is viewed by these elders as a mistake-in-progress and are working hard to prevent his nomination. Losing the delegate count to another candidate would be the party's first choice. Second, is keeping the delegate count spread widely enough across multiple candidates to allow for a "brokered convention" when the nomination process takes place (ultimately) behind closed doors.

Not commonly known - and a good exclamation point to this thread, is that the eventual nominee can be named without the electorate ever hearing his voice or seeing his face. But in this case, maybe a Romney or Ryan ... or an OldHippie.

 

OK, but why should the taxpayers be bilked to finance party elections? If the parties are using taxpayers real estate, utilities and taxpayer's voting equipment, and ballots printed by taxpayers expense, by what authority or right does a political party deny any citizen taxpayer a right to vote in their election, or why should they even be required to declare a party affiliation?

Why don't other third parties aside from the duopoly twins get to choose their candidates using taxpayer's financing?

 

Where in the Constitution, (the rule of law), does it say America will be a “two party system?”

Again, I’ll ask the question by what right or authority does the duopoly democrats and republicans get to have taxpayers finance their ”PARTY” elections? Would you be OK with your tax dollars paying for primary elections of the Communist Party, Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party and every other 3rd party?

 

Where and when do the 3rd parties get the taxpayers to finance their party activities like the duopoly Democrats and Republicans?

 

I'm not interested in rules and regulations made by the duopoly dictatorship that bilk the taxpayers to finance their party operations.

In case you misunderstand the OP, the charge is that the duopoly Democrats and Republicans have no legal constitutional authority or rational honest ability to bilk the taxpayers into financing their "PARTY" elections. If taxpayers are paying for their primary elections, every citizen taxpayer has the "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT" to vote in every election they hold and a right to vote every ballot. If the parties want to exclude particular voters of opposite ideologies, then they must by honest principle pay for their own damned primary elections and leave the taxpayer's dollars for government operations that benifit "EVERY" taxpayer and not just the chosen few.

 

The honest and legal trick is to make the duopoly dictatorship pay for their own primary elections, then they'd actually have a right to only allow their party members vote on their ballots that they, THE PARTY pay to print up. The duopoly is bilking the taxpayers for millions of dollars to finance their party operations and they're denying citizens voting rights in that process. Honest Americans should be outraged!

 

And you think it's as it should be that taxpayers finance political party operations like primary elections and in that process deny some voters the right to vote on their ballots, right?

 

And they bilked the taxpayers to pay for it all. Where's the outrage?

 

It's the other way around, I believe certain groups are turning privileges into rights, by asserting an affirmative "right" to anything, without justification for it being deemed sacrosanct. Or rather, without unbias'd justification.

 

When ever they get enough of them to require one.