![]() |
|
Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Radical Centrist
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cottage of Prussia
Posts: 31,423
|
fuck that "will of the voters" shit, so overrated!!!
thank goodness it will actually be illegal to vote they way some people want to!!! sadly there are two candidates left, i was hoping for just one, choice is an illusion!!! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Goon Squad Leader
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 27,063
|
Quote:
Let me take the bitter out and address your point about choice. I *AGREE* with you, that we voters should be able to vote the way we want to vote. Why in the world would such a law be in place? In Washington (...*sigh*, my Washington, that is) there was a big brouhaha about the state primary elections. The fight was between the established political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party (apparently these Parties are actual legal entities, with real interests) and... I forget who the other half of the lawsuit, the State of Washington, or some band of angry peasants... doesn't matter. The point was that we, the people, wanted an open primary. I should be able to vote for whomever I like, anywhere on the ballot, including write-ins. The Parties strenuously opposed this! And they won. Our primary elections allow ONLY Party choices. (Note, this is not exactly what is happening in Virginia, as that has to do with who appears on the primary ballot, not who you may choose in a primary, but closely related.) The point of the lawsuit by the Parties was a successful effort to CONTROL who would be allocated the state's delegates. It's all about the PARTY'S control of the process. I haven't followed Virginia legislation, but I'm certain the highlighted part of the law that precludes write-in candidates in primary elections was put there by and for the Parties. Please note that this does not pertain to the general election. Not only may a voter cast their ballot for either *party* ticket, but write-ins are also allowed. This "poison pill" is just for the primaries, so they can decide who can be called the Party's candidate. In WA, this prevented our largely blue state from voting for the most stupid, least likely to win red primary candidate (there's a term for this kind of defensive voting which escapes me at the moment). I am not in favor of this Party only system for the primary election. I agree, it fucks over the small d-democratic process. I believe a proportional distribution of delegates, and eventually electors will dilute this poison.
__________________
Be Just and Fear Not. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Quote:
It's sort of like the Boy Scouts of America. It seems some organizations should be open to all, but because they are legal entities they have the right to say who can and who cannot be members. Consider a minor party wanting to put forth it's candidate in accord with it's own mission statement or ideals or preferences or whatever But then the alternate (nefarious) approach of the local major party decides to flood the primary selection process with it's own larger number of votes. Tough, they say! The election is open to everyone to vote as a "small d" democracy. And in the long run, bye bye minor parties. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|