As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
That's mighty fine compelled speech to engage a basic constitutional right you've got going there.
Show me the constitutional right to choose a parties leader.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just coincidentally happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
Shorty on
+2
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
1. Bullshit. It is my party in every way that matters. Why should my vote be diluted by someone who can't be bothered to even say "this is the sandbox I want to play in"
2. This is not "participation in the presidential election". That happens in November.
3. It is deflection - but point taken. I'll dial it down.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just coincidentally happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
I get the point that Shorty is making. In a real, pragmatic, functional way since we have a FPTP election system there can only be two parties and thus, they should be public as the American population has a vested interest in knowing and choosing who will lead on either side.
On the other side, the parties are closed organizations and, at least in name with how our system works, are simply the two most successful of a great many dozens of parties that have existed and continue to exist. Being party of a party, and committing to it, is part of the responsibility and benefit of getting to vote in that primary, and those who have invested in the party generally don't want cross-party hate posting changing their candidates (or simply well meaning voting that doesn't represent the party itself).
Both points have plenty of valid background, depending on your point of view.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
1. Bullshit. It is my party in every way that matters. Why should my vote be diluted by someone who can't be bothered to even say "this is the sandbox I want to play in"
2. This is not "participation in the presidential election". That happens in November.
3. It is deflection - but point taken. I'll dial it down.
1) no, it is effectively a government institution--party leadership controls Senate and House committee assignments, for example. and your vote isn't being diluted any more than it would be by someone who wants to label themselves and just happens to disagree with you. and, this isn't a matter of "can't even be bothered"--this continual assertion of intellectual laziness is nonsensical, given that we're talking about people who are attempting to engage with politics in a far more robust away than most of the electorate. for my part, I find the idea of compelled speech as an entry barrier to a crucial part of the presidential election to be disquieting at best and gross at worst, especially since in this case it forces me to lay claim to policies I don't want anything to do with (i.e. the hawkish and tough-on-crime tendencies in the modern party).
2) I'm counting it as part of the presidential election because you're picking one of exactly two realistic candidates
3) thank you.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
1. Bullshit. It is my party in every way that matters. Why should my vote be diluted by someone who can't be bothered to even say "this is the sandbox I want to play in"
2. This is not "participation in the presidential election". That happens in November.
3. It is deflection - but point taken. I'll dial it down.
1) no, it is effectively a government institution--party leadership controls Senate and House committee assignments, for example. and your vote isn't being diluted any more than it would be by someone who wants to label themselves and just happens to disagree with you. and, this isn't a matter of "can't even be bothered"--this continual assertion of intellectual laziness is nonsensical, given that we're talking about people who are attempting to engage with politics in a far more robust away than most of the electorate. for my part, I find the idea of compelled speech as an entry barrier to a crucial part of the presidential election to be disquieting at best and gross at worst, especially since in this case it forces me to lay claim to policies I don't want anything to do with (i.e. the hawkish and tough-on-crime tendencies in the modern party).
2) I'm counting it as part of the presidential election because you're picking one of exactly two realistic candidates
3) thank you.
Let's try a different tack.
Tell me why you are unwilling to choose a party knowing that this choice allows you to select their leadership?
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
1. Bullshit. It is my party in every way that matters. Why should my vote be diluted by someone who can't be bothered to even say "this is the sandbox I want to play in"
2. This is not "participation in the presidential election". That happens in November.
3. It is deflection - but point taken. I'll dial it down.
1) no, it is effectively a government institution--party leadership controls Senate and House committee assignments, for example. and your vote isn't being diluted any more than it would be by someone who wants to label themselves and just happens to disagree with you. and, this isn't a matter of "can't even be bothered"--this continual assertion of intellectual laziness is nonsensical, given that we're talking about people who are attempting to engage with politics in a far more robust away than most of the electorate. for my part, I find the idea of compelled speech as an entry barrier to a crucial part of the presidential election to be disquieting at best and gross at worst, especially since in this case it forces me to lay claim to policies I don't want anything to do with (i.e. the hawkish and tough-on-crime tendencies in the modern party).
2) I'm counting it as part of the presidential election because you're picking one of exactly two realistic candidates
3) thank you.
Thread has moved a little quick while I was at lunch and I may have missed it: Barring a NY style fuckery that should be dealt with, why exactly do you consider it onerous to have to decide on your affiliation once every four years? It's not like Presidential elections really sneak up on you.
... especially since in this case it forces me to lay claim to policies I don't want anything to do with (i.e. the hawkish and tough-on-crime tendencies in the modern party).
If you wanted to vote for Bernie but couldn’t soil yourself with being a Democrat, your fault. Voting isn’t a consumer choice. It’s a compromise with reality. Registering as an independent is fine if you want to remain so pure you can’t be stained by whatever the Democrats choke up. But don’t complain that you couldn’t vote for the candidate you want to win.
If you hate party affiliations then just randomly join between election years.
That's at least a better option than having to commit well before you know what's up with your primary
Supporting early registration is the same logic as supporting caucuses.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
1. Bullshit. It is my party in every way that matters. Why should my vote be diluted by someone who can't be bothered to even say "this is the sandbox I want to play in"
2. This is not "participation in the presidential election". That happens in November.
3. It is deflection - but point taken. I'll dial it down.
1) no, it is effectively a government institution--party leadership controls Senate and House committee assignments, for example. and your vote isn't being diluted any more than it would be by someone who wants to label themselves and just happens to disagree with you. and, this isn't a matter of "can't even be bothered"--this continual assertion of intellectual laziness is nonsensical, given that we're talking about people who are attempting to engage with politics in a far more robust away than most of the electorate. for my part, I find the idea of compelled speech as an entry barrier to a crucial part of the presidential election to be disquieting at best and gross at worst, especially since in this case it forces me to lay claim to policies I don't want anything to do with (i.e. the hawkish and tough-on-crime tendencies in the modern party).
2) I'm counting it as part of the presidential election because you're picking one of exactly two realistic candidates
3) thank you.
Parties are not governmental institutions. Yes, party structure dictates who goes into positions, but that is, once again, a function of organization being THE force multiplier. You keep on trying to make this point, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
And it's funny that you don't want to join the party because you don't want to associate yourself with positions held within the party, but you're arguing that you should be allowed to push the party in directions the membership may not want to go. You're happy to argue that your freedom of speech is being violated, while at the same time happily violating the party members' freedom of association.
There's no reason not to join a party to muck it up from the inside if the alternative is disenfranchisement
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You can't have an open Republican Primary because if you make it open, then it's just a Primary. A primary where everyone gets to vote for who they want is... a general election.
This seems snarky so I'll mention that I'm not trying to snark anyone. I want to know if my little train of thought here makes sense.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
An indie that complains that they can't vote in a primary doesn't have a leg to stand on. Dems can't vote in Pub primaries and vice versa. Why? Because each said to the party of their choice "I am one of you."
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
You can't have an open Republican Primary because if you make it open, then it's just a Primary. A primary where everyone gets to vote for who they want is... a general election.
This seems snarky so I'll mention that I'm not trying to snark anyone. I want to know if my little train of thought here makes sense.
It makes perfect sense, which is why "jungle primaries" aren't actually primaries (they're general elections with a legally mandated runoff.) And because they're not primaries, they bring back the problems the primary was created to fix.
There's no reason not to join a party to muck it up from the inside if the alternative is disenfranchisement
As a registered Republican who never votes that way, I find it far more useful to shape the opposition than split hairs over who I find marginally more acceptable.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
no, there are 2 options
it also seems fatuous to pretend that this isn't true
Well, there's obviously the third, which excludes you from the first two - so your overly simplistic reduction falls apart before any critical thought is required.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
1. Bullshit. It is my party in every way that matters. Why should my vote be diluted by someone who can't be bothered to even say "this is the sandbox I want to play in"
2. This is not "participation in the presidential election". That happens in November.
3. It is deflection - but point taken. I'll dial it down.
1) no, it is effectively a government institution--party leadership controls Senate and House committee assignments, for example. and your vote isn't being diluted any more than it would be by someone who wants to label themselves and just happens to disagree with you. and, this isn't a matter of "can't even be bothered"--this continual assertion of intellectual laziness is nonsensical, given that we're talking about people who are attempting to engage with politics in a far more robust away than most of the electorate. for my part, I find the idea of compelled speech as an entry barrier to a crucial part of the presidential election to be disquieting at best and gross at worst, especially since in this case it forces me to lay claim to policies I don't want anything to do with (i.e. the hawkish and tough-on-crime tendencies in the modern party).
2) I'm counting it as part of the presidential election because you're picking one of exactly two realistic candidates
3) thank you.
Parties are not governmental institutions. Yes, party structure dictates who goes into positions, but that is, once again, a function of organization being THE force multiplier. You keep on trying to make this point, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
And it's funny that you don't want to join the party because you don't want to associate yourself with positions held within the party, but you're arguing that you should be allowed to push the party in directions the membership may not want to go. You're happy to argue that your freedom of speech is being violated, while at the same time happily violating the party members' freedom of association.
when it is only members of one of two parties which get to be president, and when on the offchance you can make it into the legislature as a non-party member you have to agree to ally with one of those parties in order accomplish anything, and when actual legislators spend much of their workday fundraising for those parties, then yes, those parties are effectively the government
that's always true of all political groups--consensus is never achieved, only approached. as for freedom of association, you are tacitly accepting that you will encounter people you don't agree with when you join any political party, and that is especially true for a big tent party.
A political party isn't a government institution. You could literally go out and register your own party tomorrow - and despite the FPTP system, there are at least half a dozen smaller parties that run every year in America. Why should anyone outside of the party be able to choose it's leadership or determine it's mandate?
There are 2 monolithic parties, yes, and both of those parties get real sour with anyone who runs on a ticket with a half decent campaign and thus splits votes... but that's rather the point. If I want to, in an open democracy, I should be able to run my own party and have a larger party get as pissed-off as they like but be unable to do anything about it (consider that angry Democrats probably would have intervened in the Green Party and voted-out Ralph Nader in exchange for someone willing to stop campaigning after their loss in 2000).
There's no reason not to join a party to muck it up from the inside if the alternative is disenfranchisement
As a registered Republican who never votes that way, I find it far more useful to shape the opposition than split hairs over who I find marginally more acceptable.
Party registration is just words on paper. Have a few beers and fill out the form. Let the anarchist in you have a little fun
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think part of the hotness of this discussion is that for some people, joining a party means you consent to getting a shitload of junk mail and being asked for money more often than whoever that guy Tom Cruise was talking to in that movie, you know the one. For others, their political party is part of their identity. Being a Democrat means something. What it means is a little different for every individual, but it is Important.
From there, being Independent means to some people that they do not want to be a part of this nasty, partisan, tribal bullshit they see on TV and on their Facebook and at their office. To others, it looks like Independents are not willing to fight for what they believe in, that they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.
FWIW, I agree with Hedgie. I get where JOAT and Shorty are coming from but I think they are going at it from the wrong angle. What the right angle is, I really don't know.
Regardless of what we wish the party would do, it can't be forced to open or close its primaries. There is sufficient SCOTUS precedent to say that it will never happen, legally. Given the parties seem perfectly happy opening some primaries and closing others, I don't see either extreme happening in anyone here's lifetime.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
This is part of why I don't judge people for staying out of presidential elections. Too much homeopathic crap
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
And?
They get to vote in November. On whomever they wish. If they want a choice in who is running for the Democrats or the Republicans or the Libertarians or whatever other party, they can easily just join the party.
You aren't disenfranchising these people. They still get to vote in the election.
+3
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
Plenty of other options bud.
And these independent voters can certainly choose the least worst option in November.
But if you want to influence my party, you're going to have to join it. Otherwise? Your input isn't needed or asked for.
A political party isn't a government institution. You could literally go out and register your own party tomorrow - and despite the FPTP system, there are at least half a dozen smaller parties that run every year in America. Why should anyone outside of the party be able to choose it's leadership or determine it's mandate?
There are 2 monolithic parties, yes, and both of those parties get real sour with anyone who runs on a ticket with a half decent campaign and thus splits votes... but that's rather the point. If I want to, in an open democracy, I should be able to run my own party and have a larger party get as pissed-off as they like but be unable to do anything about it (consider that angry Democrats probably would have intervened in the Green Party and voted-out Ralph Nader in exchange for someone willing to stop campaigning after their loss in 2000).
A political party is a government institution. When I register to vote, my options are "Republican", "Democrat", or "Other" and other is a joke. States don't hold primaries for "other" parties, while my state taxes pay for the primaries run for R/D. When R/D write the laws, they will do so in a way that is exclusionary to others.
The fact that I can run against someone that may hold some of my values and tank their chances at the election, only allowing for the person I don't agree with to win, is not evidence that the system is working. To me, it's quite the opposite.
+2
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
There's no reason not to join a party to muck it up from the inside if the alternative is disenfranchisement
As a registered Republican who never votes that way, I find it far more useful to shape the opposition than split hairs over who I find marginally more acceptable.
I also do this. I trust the Democratic party to field candidates with reasonable governance experience. The GOP has long since lost that capability.
A political party isn't a government institution. You could literally go out and register your own party tomorrow - and despite the FPTP system, there are at least half a dozen smaller parties that run every year in America. Why should anyone outside of the party be able to choose it's leadership or determine it's mandate?
There are 2 monolithic parties, yes, and both of those parties get real sour with anyone who runs on a ticket with a half decent campaign and thus splits votes... but that's rather the point. If I want to, in an open democracy, I should be able to run my own party and have a larger party get as pissed-off as they like but be unable to do anything about it (consider that angry Democrats probably would have intervened in the Green Party and voted-out Ralph Nader in exchange for someone willing to stop campaigning after their loss in 2000).
A political party is a government institution. When I register to vote, my options are "Republican", "Democrat", or "Other" and other is a joke. States don't hold primaries for "other" parties, while my state taxes pay for the primaries run for R/D. When R/D write the laws, they will do so in a way that is exclusionary to others.
The fact that I can run against someone that may hold some of my values and tank their chances at the election, only allowing for the person I don't agree with to win, is not evidence that the system is working. To me, it's quite the opposite.
This is a problem with FPTP, not with closed primaries.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
And?
They get to vote in November. On whomever they wish. If they want a choice in who is running for the Democrats or the Republicans or the Libertarians or whatever other party, they can easily just join the party.
You aren't disenfranchising these people. They still get to vote in the election.
You don't think that telling 42% of the population that they are only allowed to vote on the two candidates picked by the other 58% of the population is disenfranchisement?
You don't think it was disenfranchising that for over 200 years, the only option for minority and women voters were white males?
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
A political party isn't a government institution. You could literally go out and register your own party tomorrow - and despite the FPTP system, there are at least half a dozen smaller parties that run every year in America. Why should anyone outside of the party be able to choose it's leadership or determine it's mandate?
There are 2 monolithic parties, yes, and both of those parties get real sour with anyone who runs on a ticket with a half decent campaign and thus splits votes... but that's rather the point. If I want to, in an open democracy, I should be able to run my own party and have a larger party get as pissed-off as they like but be unable to do anything about it (consider that angry Democrats probably would have intervened in the Green Party and voted-out Ralph Nader in exchange for someone willing to stop campaigning after their loss in 2000).
A political party is a government institution. When I register to vote, my options are "Republican", "Democrat", or "Other" and other is a joke. States don't hold primaries for "other" parties, while my state taxes pay for the primaries run for R/D. When R/D write the laws, they will do so in a way that is exclusionary to others.
The fact that I can run against someone that may hold some of my values and tank their chances at the election, only allowing for the person I don't agree with to win, is not evidence that the system is working. To me, it's quite the opposite.
This is a problem with FPTP, not with closed primaries.
it is worth pointing out that pretty much all of my issues with closed primaries would no longer matter if we used an MMP and instant run off system
If you were to pick a random American off of the street, it's more likely that he or she would identify as an independent than as a Democrat or a Republican. That's been the case for a while now, of course, so the new numbers from Gallup breaking down the country's partisanship aren't, by themselves, earth-shattering.
In Gallup's most recent analysis, 42 percent of Americans identify as independent, compared with 29 percent who say they are Democrats and 26 percent who say they are Republicans.
That shift has given Bernie Sanders the edge in our "Who is more popular, Trump or Sanders" tracker — at least for now.)
What's interesting is when you break out those independents. As we noted in August, most independents lean toward one party or the other — and in 2012, the majority of those leaning independents voted for their preferred party's presidential candidate. (According to the book "The Gamble," 90 percent of Democratic-leaning independents backed Obama in 2012, and 78 percent of Republican-leaning ones backed Romney.)
So an accurate picture of the electorate looks a bit more like the graph at right below than the one at left.
So really, it looks like it's closer to 12% than 42%, and, either way, those people are in no way disenfranchised, nor are they "not given a choice". They're free to associate with a party and help choose a direction for it at any time they'd like. If they would prefer to be above it all, then OK, that's alright. Now they're above it all, and don't have to get the stench of icky-policy-they-don't-like off their hands, and they can register their opinion in November.
Registering for a party is only a formality and should be treated as such. There is no good reason I shouldn't be able to just say I'm a Democrat or a Republican on my primary or caucus ballot and have them take my word for it
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+4
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
And?
They get to vote in November. On whomever they wish. If they want a choice in who is running for the Democrats or the Republicans or the Libertarians or whatever other party, they can easily just join the party.
You aren't disenfranchising these people. They still get to vote in the election.
You don't think that telling 42% of the population that they are only allowed to vote on the two candidates picked by the other 58% of the population is disenfranchisement?
You don't think it was disenfranchising that for over 200 years, the only option for minority and women voters were white males?
You are allowed to vote for whoever the fuck you want. Now if you want a chance of that candidate actually winning, you have to do what the other 58%did and get organized. However, if you don't want to do the actual work that organization requires, that 58% can and rightly should tell you to fuck right off.
As to your next paragraph, man what?
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
+1
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
And for people who don't think replacing a political party is possible, consider the Whig party and if the time is right to go for the GOP's throat.
But, you know, ...effort.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
And for people who don't think replacing a political party is possible, consider the Whig party and if the time is right to go for the GOP's throat.
But, you know, ...effort.
Whig was destroyed from within, and in a time where membership was limited and media communication was not a 24 hour news-cycle that generated it's own income based upon party actions. The party hinged on a few dozen people. Now with the amount of money, membership, and broadcasting capabilities I'd be surprised if a party collapse even happens. I'd much more expect a reorganization before that.
Posts
Show me the constitutional right to choose a parties leader.
I'll wait.
my favorite part of this discussion was when you said that I just don't want to have to make a decision...in response to my assertion that people should get to participate in a decision-making process
Look. More deflection.
You want to make a decision on my party.
But you're not part of my party.
So you have to live with my parties decision.
If you want to influence my party you are free to join (at no cost to you!) and then it becomes our party.
There's a pretty big difference there.
1) once again, it is not "your" party in any way that matters
2) the cost is compelled speech in exchange for participating in a presidential election (which is what the primary is, and I will once again point out that it is fatuous to pretend that you're just a member of a private club holding a vote about who their favorite member is, which just coincidentally happens to be one of the two groups which can put a credible contender for President of the United States forward)
3) I wouldn't call it deflecting so much as pointing out that you're deliberately making this discussion as unpleasant as possible for whatever reason, and you're doing so in really stupid ways
1. Bullshit. It is my party in every way that matters. Why should my vote be diluted by someone who can't be bothered to even say "this is the sandbox I want to play in"
2. This is not "participation in the presidential election". That happens in November.
3. It is deflection - but point taken. I'll dial it down.
I get the point that Shorty is making. In a real, pragmatic, functional way since we have a FPTP election system there can only be two parties and thus, they should be public as the American population has a vested interest in knowing and choosing who will lead on either side.
On the other side, the parties are closed organizations and, at least in name with how our system works, are simply the two most successful of a great many dozens of parties that have existed and continue to exist. Being party of a party, and committing to it, is part of the responsibility and benefit of getting to vote in that primary, and those who have invested in the party generally don't want cross-party hate posting changing their candidates (or simply well meaning voting that doesn't represent the party itself).
Both points have plenty of valid background, depending on your point of view.
1) no, it is effectively a government institution--party leadership controls Senate and House committee assignments, for example. and your vote isn't being diluted any more than it would be by someone who wants to label themselves and just happens to disagree with you. and, this isn't a matter of "can't even be bothered"--this continual assertion of intellectual laziness is nonsensical, given that we're talking about people who are attempting to engage with politics in a far more robust away than most of the electorate. for my part, I find the idea of compelled speech as an entry barrier to a crucial part of the presidential election to be disquieting at best and gross at worst, especially since in this case it forces me to lay claim to policies I don't want anything to do with (i.e. the hawkish and tough-on-crime tendencies in the modern party).
2) I'm counting it as part of the presidential election because you're picking one of exactly two realistic candidates
3) thank you.
Let's try a different tack.
Tell me why you are unwilling to choose a party knowing that this choice allows you to select their leadership?
Thread has moved a little quick while I was at lunch and I may have missed it: Barring a NY style fuckery that should be dealt with, why exactly do you consider it onerous to have to decide on your affiliation once every four years? It's not like Presidential elections really sneak up on you.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/04/lessons-2
That's at least a better option than having to commit well before you know what's up with your primary
Supporting early registration is the same logic as supporting caucuses.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Parties are not governmental institutions. Yes, party structure dictates who goes into positions, but that is, once again, a function of organization being THE force multiplier. You keep on trying to make this point, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
And it's funny that you don't want to join the party because you don't want to associate yourself with positions held within the party, but you're arguing that you should be allowed to push the party in directions the membership may not want to go. You're happy to argue that your freedom of speech is being violated, while at the same time happily violating the party members' freedom of association.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This seems snarky so I'll mention that I'm not trying to snark anyone. I want to know if my little train of thought here makes sense.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
And as a member of a political party, that's not just your right, but it's how you change the party to be what you want it to be!
It makes perfect sense, which is why "jungle primaries" aren't actually primaries (they're general elections with a legally mandated runoff.) And because they're not primaries, they bring back the problems the primary was created to fix.
As a registered Republican who never votes that way, I find it far more useful to shape the opposition than split hairs over who I find marginally more acceptable.
when it is only members of one of two parties which get to be president, and when on the offchance you can make it into the legislature as a non-party member you have to agree to ally with one of those parties in order accomplish anything, and when actual legislators spend much of their workday fundraising for those parties, then yes, those parties are effectively the government
that's always true of all political groups--consensus is never achieved, only approached. as for freedom of association, you are tacitly accepting that you will encounter people you don't agree with when you join any political party, and that is especially true for a big tent party.
A political party isn't a government institution. You could literally go out and register your own party tomorrow - and despite the FPTP system, there are at least half a dozen smaller parties that run every year in America. Why should anyone outside of the party be able to choose it's leadership or determine it's mandate?
There are 2 monolithic parties, yes, and both of those parties get real sour with anyone who runs on a ticket with a half decent campaign and thus splits votes... but that's rather the point. If I want to, in an open democracy, I should be able to run my own party and have a larger party get as pissed-off as they like but be unable to do anything about it (consider that angry Democrats probably would have intervened in the Green Party and voted-out Ralph Nader in exchange for someone willing to stop campaigning after their loss in 2000).
Party registration is just words on paper. Have a few beers and fill out the form. Let the anarchist in you have a little fun
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
From there, being Independent means to some people that they do not want to be a part of this nasty, partisan, tribal bullshit they see on TV and on their Facebook and at their office. To others, it looks like Independents are not willing to fight for what they believe in, that they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.
FWIW, I agree with Hedgie. I get where JOAT and Shorty are coming from but I think they are going at it from the wrong angle. What the right angle is, I really don't know.
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And?
They get to vote in November. On whomever they wish. If they want a choice in who is running for the Democrats or the Republicans or the Libertarians or whatever other party, they can easily just join the party.
You aren't disenfranchising these people. They still get to vote in the election.
Plenty of other options bud.
And these independent voters can certainly choose the least worst option in November.
But if you want to influence my party, you're going to have to join it. Otherwise? Your input isn't needed or asked for.
A political party is a government institution. When I register to vote, my options are "Republican", "Democrat", or "Other" and other is a joke. States don't hold primaries for "other" parties, while my state taxes pay for the primaries run for R/D. When R/D write the laws, they will do so in a way that is exclusionary to others.
The fact that I can run against someone that may hold some of my values and tank their chances at the election, only allowing for the person I don't agree with to win, is not evidence that the system is working. To me, it's quite the opposite.
I also do this. I trust the Democratic party to field candidates with reasonable governance experience. The GOP has long since lost that capability.
This is a problem with FPTP, not with closed primaries.
You don't think that telling 42% of the population that they are only allowed to vote on the two candidates picked by the other 58% of the population is disenfranchisement?
You don't think it was disenfranchising that for over 200 years, the only option for minority and women voters were white males?
it is worth pointing out that pretty much all of my issues with closed primaries would no longer matter if we used an MMP and instant run off system
... via The Washington Post ...
So really, it looks like it's closer to 12% than 42%, and, either way, those people are in no way disenfranchised, nor are they "not given a choice". They're free to associate with a party and help choose a direction for it at any time they'd like. If they would prefer to be above it all, then OK, that's alright. Now they're above it all, and don't have to get the stench of icky-policy-they-don't-like off their hands, and they can register their opinion in November.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
You are allowed to vote for whoever the fuck you want. Now if you want a chance of that candidate actually winning, you have to do what the other 58%did and get organized. However, if you don't want to do the actual work that organization requires, that 58% can and rightly should tell you to fuck right off.
As to your next paragraph, man what?
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
But, you know, ...effort.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Whig was destroyed from within, and in a time where membership was limited and media communication was not a 24 hour news-cycle that generated it's own income based upon party actions. The party hinged on a few dozen people. Now with the amount of money, membership, and broadcasting capabilities I'd be surprised if a party collapse even happens. I'd much more expect a reorganization before that.