Will today's primary decide the Dem nominee?

[manifold]

I'd think that would only apply in elections.

Puh-lease!

The primaries are elections. Not to office, but to a party ticket.

Any registered voter should be allowed to walk into the polls on primary day, declare a party affiliation, and vote in that party's primary. Period.

 

[Ravi]

Puh-lease!

The primaries are elections. Not to office, but to a party ticket.

Any registered voter should be allowed to walk into the polls on primary day, declare a party affiliation, and vote in that party's primary. Period.

That I don't have a problem with.

 

[Dogger]

Puh-lease!

The primaries are elections. Not to office, but to a party ticket.

Any registered voter should be allowed to walk into the polls on primary day, declare a party affiliation, and vote in that party's primary. Period.

That's less of a problem when both parties have contested nominations, but when one has decided and the other has not, it invites pollution of the process.

Party decisions should be made by those who support the party, not it's opponents, and certainly not it's enemies. You would not let someone who hates you choose your spouse, would you?

 

[jillian]

That's gonna be a problem if Obama gets the nom.

It might be.

But, ultimately, I don't think dems will let McCain win without a fight, so they'll get it together by November.

Hopefully....

 

[manifold]

That's less of a problem when both parties have contested nominations, but when one has decided and the other has not, it invites pollution of the process.

Party decisions should be made by those who support the party, not it's opponents, and certainly not it's enemies. You would not let someone who hates you choose your spouse, would you?

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

You either support a democratic process or you do not. If you do, you have to accept the bad with the good.

 

[AllieBaba]

I should have said "Republican ratfuckers"; that was bad grammar. I switched my noun and modifier.

When I said "ratfucking Republicans", I wasn't trying to say that all Republicans are ratfuckers. I was trying to say that those Republicans who vote in Democratic Primaries to disrupt the process are ratfuckers.

Ratfucking is "an American slang term for political sabotage or dirty tricks". If memory serves me correctly, the GOP dirty tricksters of Watergate used the term to describe their own activities.

Sorry if any non-ratfucker Republicans were offended.

I think it's hilarious. You guys are so predictable. Republicans wanted you to tear each other up.

And you're doing just that. It's beautiful.

 

[Dogger]

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

You either support a democratic process or you do not. If you do, you have to accept the bad with the good.

There is nothing undemocratic about closed primaries or caucuses. Do you think the Greens would let millions of Democrats select their candidate?

 

[manifold]

There is nothing undemocratic about closed primaries or caucuses. Do you think the Greens would let millions of Democrats select their candidate?

Yes.

 

[jillian]

Closed primaries should be illegal.

Nope... the nominee represents the party.

Go look at the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lopez-Torres v. NYC Board of Elections.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/lopez_torres_v_nys_board_of_elections/

By way of analogy, if political parties can pick judicial nominees who represent their interest, then why shouldn't members of a political party be the sole arbiters of the person who is their party nominee. Presumably, such a person is supposed to best represent the party platform. Why should that representation be distorted by people who do not want the party's platform advanced? Let them go pick *their* party's nominee. That way everyone gets their person; let them duke it out and see what happens legitimately.

 

[manifold]

Nope... the nominee represents the party.

Go look at the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lopez-Torres v. NYC Board of Elections.

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/lopez_torres_v_nys_board_of_elections/

By way of analogy, if political parties can pick judicial nominees who represent their interest, then why shouldn't members of a political party be the sole arbiters of the person who is their party nominee. Presumably, such a person is supposed to best represent the party platform. Why should that representation be distorted by people who do not want the party's platform advanced? Let them go pick *their* party's nominee. That way everyone gets their person; let them duke it out and see what happens legitimately.

One problem. Taxes pay for primaries. Remove public funding and I'd agree with you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good morning.

I didn't use the same verbiage, but do you think democrats appreciated republicans voting for the democrat they thought they could beat more easily in order to tilt the election?

That said, I think a rule change about that is probably in order. And not too much to complain about until the rules actually are changed.

Each State has it's own laws, are you now suggesting the States no longer have the power? Take NC for instance, our primary is coming up. One must be registered as a republican to vote in the republican primary and one must be registered as a democrat to vote in the democratic primary, not sure on the rules for registered independents. Probably they can vote in one OR the other.

You must be registered several months before the primary to vote. If a Republican is dumb enough to throw his vote away by reregistering as a Democrat then he loses all say in all the State and local races. Pretty dumb move.

 

[jillian]

Each State has it's own laws, are you now suggesting the States no longer have the power? Take NC for instance, our primary is coming up. One must be registered as a republican to vote in the republican primary and one must be registered as a democrat to vote in the democratic primary, not sure on the rules for registered independents. Probably they can vote in one OR the other.

You must be registered several months before the primary to vote. If a Republican is dumb enough to throw his vote away by reregistering as a Democrat then he loses all say in all the State and local races. Pretty dumb move.

I'm aware of the rules. I was commenting on the concept.

And you're aware, aren't you, that some states have registration at the polls. Right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because ours is a two party system. Everyone knows third party candidates never stand a chance. Excluding anyone that wants to vote in a particular primary is decidedly undemocratic and unAmerican, IMO.

A Primary is the only "closed" system. And it SHOULD be. A Primary is to pick who will run on that ticket for that position in THAT party. In the General election it is open. You can pick and chose amongst parties as you please.

Open Primaries are , in my opinion, bad. Dogger has one thing right, even if his language is foul. Republicans should not be voting in Democratic primaries and Democrats should not be voting in Republican Primaries.

There is a problem though, as I understand it. Not all States have a means for you to register as belonging to a party. Thus the primary is open because technically no one is a republican or a democrat as far as the State is concerned.

But back to the point. States control their own elections. If the citizens of that State do not like the process, change it through the legislature as required by law.

 

[manifold]

I'm aware of the rules. I was commenting on the concept.

And you're aware, aren't you, that some states have registration at the polls. Right?

Yes.

But as RGS pointed out, some states don't.

IMO, excluding anyone that is a registered voter from voting in a publicly funded party primary should not be legal. Ever.

Of course I think an even better idea would be to scrap the primary system altogether. As it is, it's very heavily weighted in favor of insiders, cronies and hacks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm aware of the rules. I was commenting on the concept.

And you're aware, aren't you, that some states have registration at the polls. Right?

As far as I know only ONE State, Maine.

 

[jillian]

As far as I know only ONE State, Maine.

and Wisconsin

http://elections.state.wi.us/faq_detail.asp?faqid=121&fid=27&fname=linkid=

Don't have time to keep looking right now.

 

[Ravi]

One problem. Taxes pay for primaries. Remove public funding and I'd agree with you.

What if that's what the taxpayers want?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What if that's what the taxpayers want?

Then they can elect representatives to pass the laws IN their state to do it that way.

 

[Toro]

No.

She will win, but it will be ambiguous to allow her to carry on without making much of a dent in his delegate count. I say she will win by 8%.

 

[manifold]

What if that's what the taxpayers want?

You mean like southern taxpayers wanted segregation? Or Massachusetts taxpayers want to ban gay-marriage?

hmmm? maybe you have a point??