The only reason I registered was so I could vote in the primaries. For a variety of reasons I've never worn a political t-shirt, never had a political bumper sticker, and never voted for a leftist.
Restrictions on the voter that are imposed to benefit political parties place the parties' priorities above the voter's freedom. Bad idea.
It's definitely a rigged system. We wouldn't have two hated parties constantly being elected otherwise. Though I also don't mean to discount individual voter responsibility for it. What goes hand-in-hand with the rigging are the spoiler mentality and the tendency to support popular parties and ideas as 'normal' and 'mainstream'. People who cast their votes according to such principles are no better in my view than single-issue voters or any other kind of party line voter. It's lazy and it ensures that we will not get the best people in office. Of course, there are also the multitudes of us who are discouraged by this system and simply do not participate. This, I think, comes down to a lack of organisation, though I don't think it's for lack of effort in this case. Independents and third parties are trying, but the media bias and the voter biases return here to render those efforts fruitless. Another contributing factor to this problem, however, is the winner-take-all nature of our system. We don't get proportional representation in our government.. Instead, we get a few people in each state or other voting district casting votes for this candidate or that one, but these votes do not translate into any kind of victory. What's the point of voting for a libertarian presidential candidate when your state is dominated by (R) and (D) voters? It's absolutely pointless and brings us back to the spoiler mentality, which says that any vote cast for any other than a Republican or Democratic candidate will only spoil the vote for the 'less worse' of those two. That is, people tend to give up on getting what they want in the general elections and opt instead to try and aim for the lesser evil between (R) and (D), however they happen to perceive it. Since the Libertarians are nearer to Republicans than to Democrats in their ideologies, Republican supporters will see a vote cast for a Libertarian Party candidate as a spoiler vote that lessens the Republican candidate's chance to win against the Democratic candidate in that election, and so even people who would otherwise vote Libertarian will vote Republican instead. THAT needs to stop, because it creates a situation from which there is no escape. There are too many voters thinking and voting the same way for anyone other than (D) or (R) ever to win an election. Some will claim that Libertarian ideas are just too radical and not 'mainstream' enough, which of course is just dumb, but that's not the main reason that libertarians (or Green Party people, or independents, or whoever else) will not get many votes. It is mainly because they are perceived as having no real chance of winning, and that is due primarily to how our system is set up and how it has been rigged since by the two major parties. This system must be changed in order for change to come to our elected government. As it is now, no one else can even get into the presidential debates against the Big Two, which is of course enforced by the Commission on Presidential Debates, "... began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President of the United States. The Commission is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation as defined by federal US tax laws, whose debates are sponsored by private contributions from foundations and corporations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates What a flipping joke of a 'democracy' we are today.
The idea to abolish parties is present also in Italy. Thinking to how apply it at a system with a concentrated political environment [2 parties, to make it simple] and to how to run primaries without parties ... I would suggest not only to abolish parties [archaeological political organizations coming from the prehistory of modern societies], but also to abolish primaries. Let's organize the matter in this way: an institutional entity [let's call it CEO, Central Electoral Office] opens the primaries for the Presidential elections. ROUND ZERO A period of 30 days in which everybody has got resources to do can start the electoral campaign. FIRST ROUND There is a period of 60 days to register and to vote your own candidate [no previous indications, you can submit the nomination of your sister, if you want!]. After that period of 60 days the CEO selects the 20 most voted potential candidates, considering also the territorial distribution of the votes. SECOND ROUND Who registered for the FIRST ROUND can take part to this SECOND ROUND and vote again. Let's say it will take 10 DAYS. In the first 3 days new electors can register themselves. The 4 potential candidates getting the greatest number of votes pass to the final primary election. FINAL PRIMARY ELECTION The registered voters [and eventually new electors who has got 2 days to register] have got 1 WEEK to express the final vote. The two potential candidates with the greatest number of votes run for the Presidency.
I assume you're referring to people registered at Republicans only getting one ballot when they got vote or perhaps having to quit voting on death. Other than that, there are no restrictions other than allowing you to sabotage the primary voting.
No, just allowing Americans to vote as Americans without the self-serving duopoly limiting their freedom. If that helps break down the stranglehold the R&D corporate hierarchies have on representative governance, that's to the good. Let's open up the process and good things will ensue as Americans escape their party straightjackets.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/02/romney_explains/ "That year, Romney, then a registered independent, voted for former Sen. Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary. He told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week," that his vote was meant as a tactical maneuver aimed at finding the weakest opponent for incumbent President George H.W. Bush."
Natty Bumpo: "No, just allowing Americans to vote as Americans without the self-serving duopoly limiting their freedom." Does babbling make you feel better? Someone who dreams of a monopoly, a dictatorship, would naturally be frustrated by a duopoly if one existed. No one ever told you that you can register for other than the two dominant parties? You don't feel capable of registering as an independent or for the Communist Party of America or whatever party you want? The Republican Party is facing a real threat of splitting. If it does, it could be interesting. The only reasons for registering is to either make a silly political statement or to participate in the party's primary elections to select candidates. Lying scumbags who are actually communists can still register as Republicans to sabotage the primaries. See, you're not being denied any freedom.
Not that I'm aware of, though I also recall learning that the framers weren't particularly fond of party politics. Here's what teh Googs tells me: http://www.shmoop.com/political-parties/founding-fathers-political-parties.html • Founding Fathers did not anticipate or desire the existence of political parties, viewing them as "factions" dangerous to the public interest • Founders' republican ideology called for subordination of narrow interests to the general welfare of the community • Under republican ideology, politics was supposed to be rational and collaborative, not competitive • But the first American political parties began to form while George Washington was still president ...
I voted no because I believe people should be able to vote for who they believe will govern best. As long as we have a system like we do that means people should be able to vote in every primary. I'm not sure of the precise name for it here in Wisconsin but when you register to vote that's it there is no party registration. But you can only vote in one party's primary. So I have to vote only in the Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Green or whatever other party made it onto the ballot. I should be able to choose the best of each of these until we have a system without parties where people just vote for a person.
Again, note that few of the Right objected to open primaries.... when it was Limbaugh pushing his "Operation Chaos" in 2008. It's only now, that it blew up in their faces in Mississippi....used by the GOP Establishment...that they don't like them.
Absolutely they should be closed and the state government should have no involvement in them. Parties are groups of people exercising their first amendment rights. The states have no business what so ever dictating how a party may nominate its candidates. They could play duck duck goose if they wanted. Its none of the states business.
That is absolutely false because Snopes is written by a bunch of ignorant (*)(*)(*)(*) heads. Madison the author of the constitution recognized that faction was an inevitable side effect of liberty. He certainly anticipated the formation of factions. He said as much in federalist 10. And that while faction might not be a good thing using the power of government for the subordination of faction is worse than faction itself. The author of your Snopes piece is a complete and total fricking ignorant idiot.
Who says primaries have to be a vote? Its a group of people getting together to chose someone to represent them in an election. The group should be free to chose that person how ever they wish. The state has no business what so ever dictating how that decision is made. Any such regulation of party primaries violate the first amendment.
I would agree- if the parties were paying for the primaries. But you and I pay for the primaries. Get the state out of the primary business and then I don't care how the parties conduct them.
Why is the state in the primary business in the first place? IMHO so those in power can stay in power. - - - Updated - - - Anyone who can gather enough signatures.
