‘Joe the Plumber’ quitting the GOP

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Both systems seem deficient in some way.

kiss my azz commie

[Peikko 1,575]

Forcing people to take sides in order to participate doesn't seem very reasonable to me. What you say about smokey back rooms is also true, of course.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Both systems seem deficient in some way.

kiss my azz commie

there's some ghey luvin' going on here!!!!

Where's Steve??? He will soooooooooooo have something to say about this

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Forcing people to take sides in order to participate doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Participate in what? Not participate in an election to elect someone to represent all people, but to participate in an election to represent a particular party. What's unreasonable about that? Not a damn thing.

[Peikko 1,575]

I rather like the idea of smokey back rooms, they are probably full of leather backed chairs and bound books as well as full of the smell of polished mahogany.

I am getting worried about myself...

Edited May 12, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I rather like the idea of smokey back rooms, they are probably full of leather backed chairs and bound books as well as full of the smell of polished mahogany.

I am getting worried about myself...

It appeals to your inner monarchist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I rather like the idea of smokey back rooms, they are probably full of leather backed chairs and bound books as well as full of the smell of polished mahogany.

I am getting worried about myself...

Hmmm - the only thing missing from that picture is Justashooter and turkish boy he keeps to light his cigar. I imagine many lazy afternoons with the other men of quality - reminiscing about their misspent youth in Ivy League and betting vast sums of money over who can make it around the world in 80 days or who can build esoteric machines (styled in art deco) that can travel in time or to the center of the Earth.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Private Pike

[Peikko 1,575]

Forcing people to take sides in order to participate doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Participate in what? Not participate in an election to elect someone to represent all people, but to participate in an election to represent a particular party. What's unreasonable about that? Not a damn thing.

If you have to belong to a party in order to vote in a primary that's exclusive. People who don't want to belong to any party should be able to vote regardless, otherwise they are disenfranchised. I don't get the primary system, but it should be all inclusive.

Oh ####!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Forcing people to take sides in order to participate doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Participate in what? Not participate in an election to elect someone to represent all people, but to participate in an election to represent a particular party. What's unreasonable about that? Not a damn thing.

If you have to belong to a party in order to vote in a primary that's exclusive. People who don't want to belong to any party should be able to vote regardless, otherwise they are disenfranchised. I don't get the primary system, but it should be all inclusive.

Oh ####!

disenfranchised? from what? primaries don't elect anyone to office. they are merely a way for parties to decide who will represent them on the ballot. they should, by rights, be limited to party members.

[Peikko 1,575]

I rather like the idea of smokey back rooms, they are probably full of leather backed chairs and bound books as well as full of the smell of polished mahogany.

I am getting worried about myself...

Hmmm - the only thing missing from that picture is Justashooter and turkish boy he keeps to light his cigar. I imagine many lazy afternoons with the other men of quality - reminiscing about their misspent youth in Ivy League and betting vast sums of money over who can make it around the world in 80 days or who can build esoteric machines (styled in art deco) that can travel in time or to the center of the Earth.

[Peikko 1,575]

Forcing people to take sides in order to participate doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Participate in what? Not participate in an election to elect someone to represent all people, but to participate in an election to represent a particular party. What's unreasonable about that? Not a damn thing.

If you have to belong to a party in order to vote in a primary that's exclusive. People who don't want to belong to any party should be able to vote regardless, otherwise they are disenfranchised. I don't get the primary system, but it should be all inclusive.

Oh ####!

disenfranchised? from what? primaries don't elect anyone to office. they are merely a way for parties to decide who will represent them on the ballot. they should, by rights, be limited to party members.

They should be, but they are not. As it stands those who do no align themselves with a party are excluded. It should either include everyone, or only include those who belong to the party. As it stands, it is a nonsense. The election system makes me crazy, as I said.

[scandal 951]

It varies by state. Each state has its own primary system. Some allow cross-party voting, i.e. Democrats can vote in Republican primaries, and vice versa. Or non-affiliated voters being allowed to vote in a party primary. Others restrict voting to registered members of that party. Personally I think the latter is the correct approach - if you want to influence the leadership and platform of a party, the least you should do is identify yourself with that party.

I registered as a Democrat in the lead-up to the 2000 election since California (where I lived at the time) only allowed registered party members to vote in the primary, and I wanted to cast a ballot for Bill Bradley in the Bradley/Gore race that year.

Cleo, I think you are confusing the primary balloting with the general elections themselves. The primaries (and in certain states caucuses) are held several months before the presidential election to allow each party to pick its leader, and so are inherently partisan intra-party events. Often they are held on different days in a given state, e.g. the D primary may happen weeks before the R primary.

[Peikko 1,575]

It varies by state. Each state has its own primary system. Some allow cross-party voting, i.e. Democrats can vote in Republican primaries, and vice versa. Or non-affiliated voters being allowed to vote in a party primary. Others restrict voting to registered members of that party. Personally I think the latter is the correct approach - if you want to influence the leadership and platform of a party, the least you should do is identify yourself with that party.

I registered as a Democrat in the lead-up to the 2000 election since California (where I lived at the time) only allowed registered party members to vote in the primary, and I wanted to cast a ballot for Bill Bradley in the Bradley/Gore race that year.

Cleo, I think you are confusing the primary balloting with the general elections themselves. The primaries (and in certain states caucuses) are held several months before the presidential election to allow each party to pick its leader, and so are inherently partisan intra-party events. Often they are held on different days in a given state, e.g. the D primary may happen weeks before the R primary.

No, I know what a primary is, but the first part of your answer sums it up, it's ###### up if people not of the party are allowed to influence the party's leadership. That's my point though, either you should allow everyone that influence, or you should only allow that influence to go to people from that party. As it stands, if you are a member of any party you 'can' influence the ballot choices of any party but if you are not, you cannot.

[scandal 951]

It varies by state. Each state has its own primary system. Some allow cross-party voting, i.e. Democrats can vote in Republican primaries, and vice versa. Or non-affiliated voters being allowed to vote in a party primary. Others restrict voting to registered members of that party. Personally I think the latter is the correct approach - if you want to influence the leadership and platform of a party, the least you should do is identify yourself with that party.

I registered as a Democrat in the lead-up to the 2000 election since California (where I lived at the time) only allowed registered party members to vote in the primary, and I wanted to cast a ballot for Bill Bradley in the Bradley/Gore race that year.

Cleo, I think you are confusing the primary balloting with the general elections themselves. The primaries (and in certain states caucuses) are held several months before the presidential election to allow each party to pick its leader, and so are inherently partisan intra-party events. Often they are held on different days in a given state, e.g. the D primary may happen weeks before the R primary.

No, I know what a primary is, but the first part of your answer sums it up, it's ###### up if people not of the party are allowed to influence the party's leadership. That's my point though, either you should allow everyone that influence, or you should only allow that influence to go to people from that party. As it stands, if you are a member of any party you 'can' influence the ballot choices of any party but if you are not, you cannot.

You really confused me. As I said, the rules vary by state.

There isn't one national policy in all 50 states. And that's by design, according to the Constitution where the states were given the right to organize their internal voting and balloting. Within any state the rules are consistent.

You write

"That's my point though, either you should allow everyone that influence, or you should only allow that influence to go to people from that party. "

That's exactly the situation. Either a primary is open (everyone can vote) or closed (only registered party members can vote).

" if you are a member of any party you 'can' influence the ballot choices of any party but if you are not, you cannot."

In a closed primary, what you write is true. In an open primary - it's not.

If you're really interested in more, here's the wikipedia reference including a breakdown of which states are open/closed, or run caucuses (that's a whole 'nother story).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election

[Peikko 1,575]

Then blame Rob/Mel for my confusion. Post 12.