Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
Democrats choose a nominee. Americans choose a president. Independents shouldn't be able to choose the former for the same reason Canadians shouldn't be able to choose the latter.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
You can! By joining the party!
So if voting in a party primary is just something that is just a self-associated group and not a de facto extension of our election process, you'd be fine with them charging an entry fee, right?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
Democrats choose a nominee. Americans choose a president. Independents shouldn't be able to choose the former for the same reason Canadians shouldn't be able to choose the latter.
the parties are entrenched in government and are effectively intrinsic to it and it seems extraordinarily strange to me that people continue to insist otherwise
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
This is not in support of New Yorks excessive party switch requirements, btw. It's just that a party's internal decisions should be made by the party.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
You can! By joining the party!
So if voting in a party primary is just something that is just a self-associated group and not a de facto extension of our election process, you'd be fine with them charging an entry fee, right?
I would love to know what you're GPS says right now, because I have no idea how you got from A to B with that response, or how it's even relevant?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
No? Like it or not, we're a 2 party system currently, and simply having an either or in the general is not enough for me to exercise my speech and preference around candidates. While I know there's a notion that parties are "private", the fact that there are effectively no other choices makes that basically false.
It's not a notion that they are private, they are private. The fact that you want otherwise doesn't mean they are beholden to you in any way just because you are a voter. Parties switch between open and closed primaries as it suits them to try to get the most electable candidate they can, and write their rules in a way that suits them regardless of what the constitution says - end of story.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
You can! By joining the party!
So if voting in a party primary is just something that is just a self-associated group and not a de facto extension of our election process, you'd be fine with them charging an entry fee, right?
I would love to know what you're GPS says right now, because I have no idea how you got from A to B with that response, or how it's even relevant?
You're the one saying a non-governmental organization should be free to say who can and can not vote in a primary. I'm asking you to clarify the limits they can place on that. If the GOP convention adopts a platform plank at the convention saying that black voters are ineligible to vote in GOP primaries is that okay? Assuming you say no, what compels them otherwise?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
But this completely ignores the fact that within one party, there may be a person that best represents my interests/beliefs, and in the other party there may be another person that best represents my interest/beliefs. The current system of primaries entirely excludes independents from a key piece of our political process. They don't get to choose either one of the candidates that will be up for the general election, while everyone gets to vote in the general election.
Say we're one third D/R/I each. Two-thirds of the population get to choose whom will be one of the last two candidates, and then the entire population chooses from one of those two. Those two thirds who voted in the first place aren't even obligated to vote for their particular candidate. It makes their interests and beliefs more important than mine, because they have more of an impact on the voting system.
So if voting in a party primary is just something that is just a self-associated group and not a de facto extension of our election process, you'd be fine with them charging an entry fee, right?
Yes. It's not a real election and we don't need to treat it like one.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
No? Like it or not, we're a 2 party system currently, and simply having an either or in the general is not enough for me to exercise my speech and preference around candidates. While I know there's a notion that parties are "private", the fact that there are effectively no other choices makes that basically false.
It's not a notion that they are private, they are private. The fact that you want otherwise doesn't mean they are beholden to you in any way just because you are a voter. Parties switch between open and closed primaries as it suits them to try to get the most electable candidate they can, and write their rules in a way that suits them regardless of what the constitution says - end of story.
yes
this discussion is about whether or not that is desirable
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
You can! By joining the party!
So if voting in a party primary is just something that is just a self-associated group and not a de facto extension of our election process, you'd be fine with them charging an entry fee, right?
I would love to know what you're GPS says right now, because I have no idea how you got from A to B with that response, or how it's even relevant?
You're the one saying a non-governmental organization should be free to say who can and can not vote in a primary. I'm asking you to clarify the limits they can place on that. If the GOP convention adopts a platform plank at the convention saying that black voters are ineligible to vote in GOP primaries is that okay? Assuming you say no, what compels them otherwise?
You're inventing an issue that doesn't exist. There are laws that say who is eligible vote, and restricting party affiliation past those laws I would imagine would be illegal. Of course IANAL. But even assuming that wasn't the case, I would support the standard of "If you're eligible to vote, parties are required to accept your registration".
Which again, is a hilariously bullshit strawman, because political parties don't want to turn away voters. They want you to join them so they can perform outreach, have you perform outreach and grow their sociopolitical strength.
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
edited May 2016
Remind me how choosing to not affiliate with a party (actively) and that party then saying "nope" wrt selecting that parties leaders is disenfranchisement again?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
Because I'm going to have to vote for one of the two in the general, so why wouldn't I be able to pick which party I vote for in the primary?
Democrats choose a nominee. Americans choose a president. Independents shouldn't be able to choose the former for the same reason Canadians shouldn't be able to choose the latter.
Or even more directly: Registered voters choose a President. Registered Democrats choose a nominee.
I help organize and run a rather large flag football group on Facebook. We generally have two events a week that all 140+ members are invited to. Almost invariably, every event, there are one or two people who post asking to change the time or location to be more beneficial to them. They never actually RSVP as Going, Maybe or Not Going, even if we do alter the event. And almost assuredly, said people either show up late, or not at all.
Take a wild guess who is the Democratic Party, what the primaries are, and who Independant voters are in this story.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
1) you have yet to demonstrate that this is a real observable problem
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
No? Like it or not, we're a 2 party system currently, and simply having an either or in the general is not enough for me to exercise my speech and preference around candidates. While I know there's a notion that parties are "private", the fact that there are effectively no other choices makes that basically false.
It's not a notion that they are private, they are private. The fact that you want otherwise doesn't mean they are beholden to you in any way just because you are a voter. Parties switch between open and closed primaries as it suits them to try to get the most electable candidate they can, and write their rules in a way that suits them regardless of what the constitution says - end of story.
yes
this discussion is about whether or not that is desirable
the parties are entrenched in government and are effectively intrinsic to it and it seems extraordinarily strange to me that people continue to insist otherwise
Mostly yes, but people are using a lot of terminology that suggests there is still confusion about it.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
There's nothing stopping me from changing party registration every cycle right
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.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
Why?
Seriously, why is buy-in so important to you?
Because I think that political parties should be able to decide on their positions and flagbearers without outsiders trying to put their thumb on the scale. (And yes, I think that's applicable across the board.)
So, let me reverse the question - why is it so important that independents be allowed to influence political parties in primary elections without having to join? Why shouldn't they be held to their choice?
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
Why?
Seriously, why is buy-in so important to you?
Because the actual cost is zero?
Because if more I's who wanted to vote D registered as D's they may be more likely to have their concerns addressed?
Because we have seen that most I's truly lean one way and if we had better data we might be able to take better action?
Because the whole point is to be part of the community and simply being unwilling to acknowledge your membership is adequate for exclusion?
When you register to vote you get to pick your sandbox. There's a couple big ones. Then there's a few buckets of sand. Or, you could take your thimble of sand and do your own thing. I do not think it is so onerous for you to need to let the sandbox folks know which one you want to play in, nor do I think it's onerous for the sandbox folks to say "you can come play, even though you initially chose not to. But you gotta let us know in advance."
Edit
To take this further: tell me why you should be able to influence my party?
There's nothing stopping me from changing party registration every cycle right
Depends on where you live. I tried to change in January and the Dems told me to fuck off this cycle. Which really encourages me to donate and volunteer, let me tell you.
It's almost like NY has an entrenched power structure who had already chosen their candidate and didn't want the silly voters to fuck that up for somebody else.
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.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
Why?
Seriously, why is buy-in so important to you?
Because I think that political parties should be able to decide on their positions and flagbearers without outsiders trying to put their thumb on the scale. (And yes, I think that's applicable across the board.)
So, let me reverse the question - why is it so important that independents be allowed to influence political parties in primary elections without having to join? Why shouldn't they be held to their choice?
When has that happened?
For the "undecided" block, which is incidentally who generally decide who becomes president, why shouldn't they have an opportunity to signal their preference? Isn't that the problem superdelegates are supposed to solve on the Dem side - selecting a candidate that will do well in the general? Why wouldn't you want to include as many as possible?
As someone who's basically always voted in a state that allows easy switching between parties, I'm at a loss of why you wouldn't want that freedom. Is the next step a test to see if you're fit to vote in the primary? Or an admission cost, as mentioned above?
Well, whatever. If a party doesn't care about independents they should get along fine without their vote
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.
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
Why?
Seriously, why is buy-in so important to you?
Because I think that political parties should be able to decide on their positions and flagbearers without outsiders trying to put their thumb on the scale. (And yes, I think that's applicable across the board.)
So, let me reverse the question - why is it so important that independents be allowed to influence political parties in primary elections without having to join? Why shouldn't they be held to their choice?
When has that happened?
For the "undecided" block, which is incidentally who generally decide who becomes president, why shouldn't they have an opportunity to signal their preference? Isn't that the problem superdelegates are supposed to solve on the Dem side - selecting a candidate that will do well in the general? Why wouldn't you want to include as many as possible?
As someone who's basically always voted in a state that allows easy switching between parties, I'm at a loss of why you wouldn't want that freedom. Is the next step a test to see if you're fit to vote in the primary? Or an admission cost, as mentioned above?
Watch out, that slope looks awfully slippery. I don't see saying "hey, you want a voice in who the party puts forth, join" as the first step towards poll taxes and tests. It's simply saying that your choice to be independent means that you've chosen to step out of the internal selections for party candidates.
And no, I don't want that "freedom", because I think that it's meaningful to say that I'm aligned with a specific party (I've been a registered Democrat since I was 18.) Again, nobody is saying you can't have the opportunity to choose a party candidate - just that you shouldn't be allowed to while sitting on the fence.
I will also say that while I think that one should be a member of a party in order to vote in that party's primary, I also think it should be easy to affiliate yourself with that party up to the date of the primary. There's no reason to be exclusionary against people who are genuinely undecided up to that point.
+10
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
Why?
Seriously, why is buy-in so important to you?
Because I think that political parties should be able to decide on their positions and flagbearers without outsiders trying to put their thumb on the scale. (And yes, I think that's applicable across the board.)
So, let me reverse the question - why is it so important that independents be allowed to influence political parties in primary elections without having to join? Why shouldn't they be held to their choice?
1) once again I'm going to demand that you prove that this is a real problem
2) because any barrier to entry into any part of our democratic process is undesirable
+3
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
+1
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"
Another set stats confirming that New Hampshire is the best state in the union.
Well at least slightly more than half of it.
Though I suspect there are other factors as well. NY's is likely low because of the huge number of voters ineligible to vote in the party primaries.
I still don't get why more states don't do it the same way as NH. I voted under similar circumstances both there and in California (Oakland) where I was able to go in as independent, pick a ballot, then return to independent afterward. Both times in and out in under 20 minutes.
Because that's the issue? Why should you be able to vote in a party primary if you're not willing to be a party member?
Because I have a vested interest in the leader of the country, just like every other voter? Party lock-in should not be a thing.
That's why you get to vote in the actual election.
Yes - your vested interest in determining who should be elected is satisfied in the general. If you want to decide the party flagbearer for the general, well - you should be a party member.
it continues to be incredibly strange to me that this is the one thing where pragmatism doesn't seem to matter to you
Pragmatism in what sense? I find it funny how everyone wants to argue that voters that choose to be independent should be relieved of the consequences of that choice. If you don't care enough to align yourself with a party, why should you be allowed to help choose that party's flagbearer?
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
Why?
Seriously, why is buy-in so important to you?
Because I think that political parties should be able to decide on their positions and flagbearers without outsiders trying to put their thumb on the scale. (And yes, I think that's applicable across the board.)
So, let me reverse the question - why is it so important that independents be allowed to influence political parties in primary elections without having to join? Why shouldn't they be held to their choice?
I don't know what you mean exactly by "held to their choice". All a primary vote is is a voter saying, "This is who I would prefer to vote for in a general election." I am not sure why someone would need there to be further consequences of that decision.
But, since you are asking why I personally think it is important...
Here in Abilene, Texas, for instance, the ballots for the Democratic Party, such that they are, typically contain one candidate for any office the Democrats are actually contesting, and there aren't many. There are sometimes party planks that I can vote for, but by and large they are irrelevant since Democrats never get to shape policy here.
So great, I bought into the Democratic Party! ...Except that this actually gives me less of a say than if I could have just voted in the primary that actually would make a difference. There are occasionally choices on the Republican ticket between a guy that says, "Look, everybody should believe in Jesus, but I'm going to head to Washington and try and get us some money to fix these damn roads" and another guy that says, "WHY SO SERIOUS".
In any given election where there is actually a possibility that one of two Dem candidates will be able to potentially win an office, I would prefer to vote in their primary. But if my ticket is just, "Yep, you sure are voting for a bunch of people running unopposed" then what's the point? In that case, I might as well go vote for the Republican guy who isn't going to propose legislation that will shove rusty spikes up people's asses.
Now, I have bought into the Democratic Party. I'm unabashedly a rock-ribbed Texas Democrat and personally think I need to vote straight D all the time on the off chance Texas ever decides to go purple. But I certainly don't begrudge people their right to vote however they choose. If they want to be less idealistic than me and use their primary vote to make sure Korrok doesn't win, they can do that! Because Texas has an open primary, something the parties decided would be a good idea here but not in other states.
Which is kind of the issue with this argument, in my opinion. We're talking about opening or closing every primary but the parties themselves don't want to do that. They want to have their cake and eat it too by opening some primaries and closing others. So basically, even though I think all primaries should be open and you think they should all be closed, neither are going to happen because the parties don't want it to. And they can't be made to, either (example: Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut).
So functionally, we are arguing over a kind of insane hypothetical: if the parties decided they were going to go all one way or all the other way, which way should they go? And since I think the primaries are too important to democracy to be internal to parties, I would argue in the direction of open primaries. And I guess you disagree with that, so this is a big rhetorical circle.
0
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
Easiest example for me to find was South Carolina, where about 20% of the voters were not registered with either party. Taking them out entirely wouldn't have really changed the results.
Party crossover was sub-3% for both parties.
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.
+2
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
There's nothing stopping me from changing party registration every cycle right
Depends on where you live. I tried to change in January and the Dems told me to fuck off this cycle. Which really encourages me to donate and volunteer, let me tell you.
It's almost like NY has an entrenched power structure who had already chosen their candidate and didn't want the silly voters to fuck that up for somebody else.
Yeah, NY's system is a clusterfuck. But that doesn't really indicate we need open primaries, it means we need to reform New York's voter registration system.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+10
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.
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.
Posts
Democrats choose a nominee. Americans choose a president. Independents shouldn't be able to choose the former for the same reason Canadians shouldn't be able to choose the latter.
You've been touting the benefits to pragmatic approaches in politics for as long as I've posted here. Ignoring what "should be" for what "is", politically speaking. And I commonly find myself in agreement with you on things to this effect. I am sure we are both strongly in favor of actively increasing minority representation in politics, because even though we should have a less monochromatic array of politicians, assuming all things were equal and one could simply expect diversity from the natural demographic shifts we are seeing leading to fewer white people and more black people running for office, you and I know that is not the case. If we want the people we elect to more closely resemble the people they represent in terms of demographics, we need to actively make that happen through various actively pragmatic legislative means, whether that be improving the educational opportunities for areas with heavily black populations, districting such that we don't lump many medium-sized groups of black people in with larger groups of white people, etc.
Hooray for pragmatism! Hooray for common ground!
Except when it comes to allowing the public to decide more than "which candidate from the only two viable parties do you prefer", you shift from pragmatism to idealism.
I have heard from some people that America isn't a two-party country. This is technically correct, which as we all know is the best kind of correct. In reality, we are a two-party country in everything but (some people's) ideals. Yes, parties are the force multiplier, and we have to work within the shitty FPTP system we have, because it's not going away.
Now, having said all that, why is it so important that there be buy-in at the party level? I know we would all like to live in a world where nobody minded getting constant fundraising emails and calls from the party, and everybody agreed on every platform in the party, and everybody wanted to vote straight D in every election. But we don't.
Not everybody is like us, and there are actual reasons people would like to cast a vote to help shape the country but not want to be tied to a political party. You might disagree with them; hell, I disagree with them! But the net effect of mandatory party registration for primary participation is that fewer people bother getting involved. Shouldn't we want more people getting involved in democracy? Why does everybody have to get involved the way you want them to get involved?
This is what Shorty means when he says you are pragmatic except on this issue. You ignore the reality of our (basically state-sponsored) two-party system in favor of idealistic thinking: that everybody should want to be part of one of those parties if they care to be involved in democracy.
Under any other system whereby third parties could be as viable, I would even agree with you because people could have far more of a say in the primary process than they do now by registering with a party. But since I value voter participation and involvement far more than I do party buy-in, I favor pragmatism on this issue.
So if voting in a party primary is just something that is just a self-associated group and not a de facto extension of our election process, you'd be fine with them charging an entry fee, right?
the parties are entrenched in government and are effectively intrinsic to it and it seems extraordinarily strange to me that people continue to insist otherwise
why should I have to?
I would love to know what you're GPS says right now, because I have no idea how you got from A to B with that response, or how it's even relevant?
It's not a notion that they are private, they are private. The fact that you want otherwise doesn't mean they are beholden to you in any way just because you are a voter. Parties switch between open and closed primaries as it suits them to try to get the most electable candidate they can, and write their rules in a way that suits them regardless of what the constitution says - end of story.
You're the one saying a non-governmental organization should be free to say who can and can not vote in a primary. I'm asking you to clarify the limits they can place on that. If the GOP convention adopts a platform plank at the convention saying that black voters are ineligible to vote in GOP primaries is that okay? Assuming you say no, what compels them otherwise?
But this completely ignores the fact that within one party, there may be a person that best represents my interests/beliefs, and in the other party there may be another person that best represents my interest/beliefs. The current system of primaries entirely excludes independents from a key piece of our political process. They don't get to choose either one of the candidates that will be up for the general election, while everyone gets to vote in the general election.
Say we're one third D/R/I each. Two-thirds of the population get to choose whom will be one of the last two candidates, and then the entire population chooses from one of those two. Those two thirds who voted in the first place aren't even obligated to vote for their particular candidate. It makes their interests and beliefs more important than mine, because they have more of an impact on the voting system.
Yes. It's not a real election and we don't need to treat it like one.
yes
this discussion is about whether or not that is desirable
You're inventing an issue that doesn't exist. There are laws that say who is eligible vote, and restricting party affiliation past those laws I would imagine would be illegal. Of course IANAL. But even assuming that wasn't the case, I would support the standard of "If you're eligible to vote, parties are required to accept your registration".
Which again, is a hilariously bullshit strawman, because political parties don't want to turn away voters. They want you to join them so they can perform outreach, have you perform outreach and grow their sociopolitical strength.
Or even more directly: Registered voters choose a President. Registered Democrats choose a nominee.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I help organize and run a rather large flag football group on Facebook. We generally have two events a week that all 140+ members are invited to. Almost invariably, every event, there are one or two people who post asking to change the time or location to be more beneficial to them. They never actually RSVP as Going, Maybe or Not Going, even if we do alter the event. And almost assuredly, said people either show up late, or not at all.
Take a wild guess who is the Democratic Party, what the primaries are, and who Independant voters are in this story.
Your position isn't pragmatic, it's trying to have your cake and eat it too. You're arguing that you should be able to say that you're an independent, until it becomes inconvenient for you, then you should be allowed to temporarily join a party and push them to accept a candidate that may be at odds with the party base, then become independent again.
I'm sorry, but if you choose to be independent, you should be willing to accept that you've chosen to opt out of the selection of party candidates. If it is important to you to be able to select those candidates, then you should be willing to join.
1) you have yet to demonstrate that this is a real observable problem
2) why?
Mostly yes, but people are using a lot of terminology that suggests there is still confusion about it.
Why?
Seriously, why is buy-in so important to you?
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.
Because I think that political parties should be able to decide on their positions and flagbearers without outsiders trying to put their thumb on the scale. (And yes, I think that's applicable across the board.)
So, let me reverse the question - why is it so important that independents be allowed to influence political parties in primary elections without having to join? Why shouldn't they be held to their choice?
Because the actual cost is zero?
Because if more I's who wanted to vote D registered as D's they may be more likely to have their concerns addressed?
Because we have seen that most I's truly lean one way and if we had better data we might be able to take better action?
Because the whole point is to be part of the community and simply being unwilling to acknowledge your membership is adequate for exclusion?
When you register to vote you get to pick your sandbox. There's a couple big ones. Then there's a few buckets of sand. Or, you could take your thimble of sand and do your own thing. I do not think it is so onerous for you to need to let the sandbox folks know which one you want to play in, nor do I think it's onerous for the sandbox folks to say "you can come play, even though you initially chose not to. But you gotta let us know in advance."
Edit
To take this further: tell me why you should be able to influence my party?
Depends on where you live. I tried to change in January and the Dems told me to fuck off this cycle. Which really encourages me to donate and volunteer, let me tell you.
It's almost like NY has an entrenched power structure who had already chosen their candidate and didn't want the silly voters to fuck that up for somebody else.
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.
When has that happened?
For the "undecided" block, which is incidentally who generally decide who becomes president, why shouldn't they have an opportunity to signal their preference? Isn't that the problem superdelegates are supposed to solve on the Dem side - selecting a candidate that will do well in the general? Why wouldn't you want to include as many as possible?
As someone who's basically always voted in a state that allows easy switching between parties, I'm at a loss of why you wouldn't want that freedom. Is the next step a test to see if you're fit to vote in the primary? Or an admission cost, as mentioned above?
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.
Watch out, that slope looks awfully slippery. I don't see saying "hey, you want a voice in who the party puts forth, join" as the first step towards poll taxes and tests. It's simply saying that your choice to be independent means that you've chosen to step out of the internal selections for party candidates.
And no, I don't want that "freedom", because I think that it's meaningful to say that I'm aligned with a specific party (I've been a registered Democrat since I was 18.) Again, nobody is saying you can't have the opportunity to choose a party candidate - just that you shouldn't be allowed to while sitting on the fence.
1) once again I'm going to demand that you prove that this is a real problem
2) because any barrier to entry into any part of our democratic process is undesirable
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 don't know what you mean exactly by "held to their choice". All a primary vote is is a voter saying, "This is who I would prefer to vote for in a general election." I am not sure why someone would need there to be further consequences of that decision.
But, since you are asking why I personally think it is important...
Here in Abilene, Texas, for instance, the ballots for the Democratic Party, such that they are, typically contain one candidate for any office the Democrats are actually contesting, and there aren't many. There are sometimes party planks that I can vote for, but by and large they are irrelevant since Democrats never get to shape policy here.
So great, I bought into the Democratic Party! ...Except that this actually gives me less of a say than if I could have just voted in the primary that actually would make a difference. There are occasionally choices on the Republican ticket between a guy that says, "Look, everybody should believe in Jesus, but I'm going to head to Washington and try and get us some money to fix these damn roads" and another guy that says, "WHY SO SERIOUS".
In any given election where there is actually a possibility that one of two Dem candidates will be able to potentially win an office, I would prefer to vote in their primary. But if my ticket is just, "Yep, you sure are voting for a bunch of people running unopposed" then what's the point? In that case, I might as well go vote for the Republican guy who isn't going to propose legislation that will shove rusty spikes up people's asses.
Now, I have bought into the Democratic Party. I'm unabashedly a rock-ribbed Texas Democrat and personally think I need to vote straight D all the time on the off chance Texas ever decides to go purple. But I certainly don't begrudge people their right to vote however they choose. If they want to be less idealistic than me and use their primary vote to make sure Korrok doesn't win, they can do that! Because Texas has an open primary, something the parties decided would be a good idea here but not in other states.
Which is kind of the issue with this argument, in my opinion. We're talking about opening or closing every primary but the parties themselves don't want to do that. They want to have their cake and eat it too by opening some primaries and closing others. So basically, even though I think all primaries should be open and you think they should all be closed, neither are going to happen because the parties don't want it to. And they can't be made to, either (example: Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut).
So functionally, we are arguing over a kind of insane hypothetical: if the parties decided they were going to go all one way or all the other way, which way should they go? And since I think the primaries are too important to democracy to be internal to parties, I would argue in the direction of open primaries. And I guess you disagree with that, so this is a big rhetorical circle.
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
Party crossover was sub-3% for both parties.
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
Yeah, NY's system is a clusterfuck. But that doesn't really indicate we need open primaries, it means we need to reform New York's voter registration system.
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.
That's mighty fine compelled speech to engage a basic constitutional right you've got going there.