As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
Plenty of other options bud.
And these independent voters can certainly choose the least worst option in November.
But if you want to influence my party, you're going to have to join it. Otherwise? Your input isn't needed or asked for.
Don't parties try to reach out to independents to get them to join, or at least see what they want?
But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
They do have the opportunity to support such a person. There are no dues to pay, no application form, it doesn't affect your taxes, you don't even have to leave the house to do so! jmcdonald isn't doing anything to these people, it's their choice.
All their choices are shitty, yes, and things should change. But I think you got the wrong target in your sights.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
And?
They get to vote in November. On whomever they wish. If they want a choice in who is running for the Democrats or the Republicans or the Libertarians or whatever other party, they can easily just join the party.
You aren't disenfranchising these people. They still get to vote in the election.
You don't think that telling 42% of the population that they are only allowed to vote on the two candidates picked by the other 58% of the population is disenfranchisement?
You don't think it was disenfranchising that for over 200 years, the only option for minority and women voters were white males?
Except this isn't true. You can vote for whomever you want. Shit, I'm pretty sure there's write-ins everywhere so you can even vote for people who aren't technically running in the general election. No one is being disenfranchised by the primary process because everyone gets to vote in the general. Because you can't be disenfranchised by not getting to vote in a party's primary.
See, this is the whole problem with your position. It's built on these implicit assumptions you don't even seem to notice and that aren't even correct. You are conjuring some sort of strange "right to decide a party's nominee" from out of nowhere without any support for why this would even be a thing.
You have a right to vote. (not constitutionally afaik but certainly morally and from a philosophical perspective) For whomever you choose. You do not have the unabrigable right to decide a specific party's nominee because that doesn't even make sense.
+3
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
Because when the only options are Democrat or Republican, you disenfranchise anyone who doesn't support either party. And you end up disenfranchising the very people who ultimately decide the election.
42% of the population identify themselves as independent. That's a huge amount of people who are ultimately given no choice in which two candidates will be running for President in November.
And reducing someone's argument to "because I wanna" is super insulting. The fact of the matter is that a person can have key disagreements with both parties that make it so they feel that they morally cannot support either institution as a unit. They may be fully capable and willing to support a specific candidate within that institution, because a person's beliefs are not the same as the organization's beliefs. But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
Withholding the vote from someone because they refuse to join a party is a form of disenfranchisement.
Plenty of other options bud.
And these independent voters can certainly choose the least worst option in November.
But if you want to influence my party, you're going to have to join it. Otherwise? Your input isn't needed or asked for.
Don't parties try to reach out to independents to get them to join, or at least see what they want?
But you're not willing to give them the opportunity to support such a person until the general election.
They do have the opportunity to support such a person. There are no dues to pay, no application form, it doesn't affect your taxes, you don't even have to leave the house to do so! jmcdonald isn't doing anything to these people, it's their choice.
All their choices are shitty, yes, and things should change. But I think you got the wrong target in your sights.
If you were to pick a random American off of the street, it's more likely that he or she would identify as an independent than as a Democrat or a Republican. That's been the case for a while now, of course, so the new numbers from Gallup breaking down the country's partisanship aren't, by themselves, earth-shattering.
In Gallup's most recent analysis, 42 percent of Americans identify as independent, compared with 29 percent who say they are Democrats and 26 percent who say they are Republicans.
That shift has given Bernie Sanders the edge in our "Who is more popular, Trump or Sanders" tracker — at least for now.)
What's interesting is when you break out those independents. As we noted in August, most independents lean toward one party or the other — and in 2012, the majority of those leaning independents voted for their preferred party's presidential candidate. (According to the book "The Gamble," 90 percent of Democratic-leaning independents backed Obama in 2012, and 78 percent of Republican-leaning ones backed Romney.)
So an accurate picture of the electorate looks a bit more like the graph at right below than the one at left.
So really, it looks like it's closer to 12% than 42%, and, either way, those people are in no way disenfranchised, nor are they "not given a choice". They're free to associate with a party and help choose a direction for it at any time they'd like. If they would prefer to be above it all, then OK, that's alright. Now they're above it all, and don't have to get the stench of icky-policy-they-don't-like off their hands, and they can register their opinion in November.
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?
but after that?
if a voter has chosen to say "no. thanks but no thanks. i am independent from your party."
then the party is correct to say "that's cool brah. let us know if that changes. until then you don't get a say in what we do."
It's less of a complaint than an explanation of why turnout is bad
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.
A political party isn't a government institution. You could literally go out and register your own party tomorrow - and despite the FPTP system, there are at least half a dozen smaller parties that run every year in America. Why should anyone outside of the party be able to choose it's leadership or determine it's mandate?
There are 2 monolithic parties, yes, and both of those parties get real sour with anyone who runs on a ticket with a half decent campaign and thus splits votes... but that's rather the point. If I want to, in an open democracy, I should be able to run my own party and have a larger party get as pissed-off as they like but be unable to do anything about it (consider that angry Democrats probably would have intervened in the Green Party and voted-out Ralph Nader in exchange for someone willing to stop campaigning after their loss in 2000).
A political party is a government institution. When I register to vote, my options are "Republican", "Democrat", or "Other" and other is a joke. States don't hold primaries for "other" parties, while my state taxes pay for the primaries run for R/D. When R/D write the laws, they will do so in a way that is exclusionary to others.
The fact that I can run against someone that may hold some of my values and tank their chances at the election, only allowing for the person I don't agree with to win, is not evidence that the system is working. To me, it's quite the opposite.
I don't agree that 'other' needs to be a joke, though. If you have reasonable expectations, third party can be quite viable; the Green were never going to take the Presidency, for example, but that wasn't the goal - the goal was to raise about $5M and get about ~5% of the vote, and grow the party from there.
Multiple parties, even in FPTP systems, have done this; start small, secure a base, build from there. If you do this in a safe territory (California for left wing politics, as an example), you don't even have to worry about vote splitting.
But it doesn't work if you literally institutionalize parties of certain sizes.
What if elections were a series of double elimination tournaments
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.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Iowa is making the system to reinfranchise ex-felons slightly less shitty. It will still be incredibly shitty and over-complicated and they shouldn't have to do it to get voting rights back.
Iowa is making the system to reinfranchise ex-felons slightly less shitty. It will still be incredibly shitty and over-complicated and they shouldn't have to do it to get voting rights back.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
That's mighty fine compelled speech to engage a basic constitutional right you've got going there.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
Except this is what that case was about:
The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to delegate its authority over elections to the Democratic Party in order to allow discrimination to be practiced.
Which isn't at all applicable to discussion taking place in that quote tree.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
Except this is what that case was about:
The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to delegate its authority over elections to the Democratic Party in order to allow discrimination to be practiced.
Which isn't at all applicable to discussion taking place in that quote tree.
There's a bit more to the case than the Wikipedia summary. Might I suggest reading the decision itself? The concept that America's two political parties are private organizations free to set their own rules as they see fit is false, and echoes the argument that those parties used in the past to disenfranchise minorities.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
Except this is what that case was about:
The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to delegate its authority over elections to the Democratic Party in order to allow discrimination to be practiced.
Which isn't at all applicable to discussion taking place in that quote tree.
There's a bit more to the case than the Wikipedia summary. Might I suggest reading the decision itself? The concept that America's two political parties are private organizations free to set their own rules as they see fit is false, and echoes the argument that those parties used in the past to disenfranchise minorities.
SCOTUS has also explicitly said that closed primaries (and open primaries, and pretty much any kind of primary) are legal. There are more applicable cases to point to than a clearly racist rule in Texas.
Open and closed primaries are both legal, but I think the overall point being made is that there are actual limits to a party's freedom of association, when there is a compelling reason to limit it.
For instance, when allowing freedom of association would disenfranchise groups based on their race.
Open and closed primaries are both legal, but I think the overall point being made is that there are actual limits to a party's freedom of association, when there is a compelling reason to limit it.
For instance, when allowing freedom of association would disenfranchise groups based on their race.
And we're nowhere near those limits when a party says that voters need to register as Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary.
Open and closed primaries are both legal, but I think the overall point being made is that there are actual limits to a party's freedom of association, when there is a compelling reason to limit it.
For instance, when allowing freedom of association would disenfranchise groups based on their race.
And we're nowhere near those limits when a party says that voters need to register as Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary.
Given California Democratic Party v. Jones, I agree that there is no argument to be made that closed primaries are opposable in any kind of legal way. Clearly the law is on the side of allowing the parties to close their primaries.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
You're not asking anyone to jump through any hoops. Registering to be a democrat is as easy as registering to vote. It is even usually the same process
You're not asking anyone to jump through any hoops. Registering to be a democrat is as easy as registering to vote. It is even usually the same process
Different deadlines though I think
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
That's mighty fine compelled speech to engage a basic constitutional right you've got going there.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Disliking your choices on the ballot is not disenfranchisement.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Here's the important part, which you are glossing over and sounding a bit disingenuous. Multiple posters have said that New York's rules are too restrictive and have encouraged same day registration. These posters also say, if you want to vote in the Dem primary, you need to register Dem.
The people arguing they are disenfranchised are saying they should vote in the Dem primary even though they are registered independent [or some just don't want to be registered to a specific party, but that is functionally the same in the amount of paperwork and time, usually]. No one is being put through an extra hoop to register as a Dem, they are doing the exact same amount of hoops as it takes to register to vote, period.
So, if you want to vote, you register, and 99.9% of this board agrees such registration should be easier with less restrictions, but NOBODY says you should be able to vote without any voter registration.
If you want to vote in a primary, you register with a specific party, and that issue is being argued because number of people want to voting without registering, no matter how easy the registration.
Trying to tie this to racial discrimination rulings is conflating the current issue being debated with a completely different issue and hurting the ability to make salient points on the current topic.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
As a registered Democrat it would be stupid for me to vote in the Republican primary since i'm not a Republican. My opinion on the Republican nominees doesn't matter, because i'm not affiliated with that party.
The primaries are an internal decision made by members of the party about who is going to represent that party in the general election. I don't understand what's contentious about saying that the people who make that decision should be party members. If someone doesn't want to be affiliated with the Democrats, or the Republicans that's fine, but by doing so they are opting out of having a say in internal party decisions.
once again pointing out that these are "internal party decisions" only under a very labored definition of that term
choosing one of our two options for president (unless you want to pretend that third parties are relevant) is absolutely a right that should be accessible to anyone without being forced to join any group, especially since one of the parties has effectively ceded the white house until 2024
I ask again. Why should you be able to influence my party? It's not your party. It's my party.
I still haven't seen any answer that doesn't reduce to "because I wanna"
I think that's because you aren't reading, then
I've said multiple times that the parties are effectively public entities at this point, and it seems fatuous to pretend otherwise
Bullshit.
Then join a party.
Because it looks like you have plenty of options, you just don't want to have to make the barest of minimum of decisions.
That's mighty fine compelled speech to engage a basic constitutional right you've got going there.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
this is definitely a bullshit situation, and it's a little weird that you'd look at this and be like "nah that's fine" but the city can (and probably should) set its own non-partisan primary rules if the party isn't going to fix it (which it is apparently not their job to do)
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
Nobody's being disenfranchised? Voters are being disenfranchised. It's another form to forget, another deadline to miss, another batch of people who don't get to vote. You might as well say that nobody is being disenfranchised if they're required to show a driver's licence at the polling place.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like the usual suspects butthurt that Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential primary and working backwards from there, and if long-held beliefs about voting rights get in the way, so much the worse for voting rights.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
Nobody's being disenfranchised? Voters are being disenfranchised. It's another form to forget, another deadline to miss, another batch of people who don't get to vote. You might as well say that nobody is being disenfranchised if they're required to show a driver's licence at the polling place.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like the usual suspects butthurt that Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential primary and working backwards from there, and if long-held beliefs about voting rights get in the way, so much the worse for voting rights.
I'm sorry, but "since the GOP can't field a credible candidate here, we should let their voters push the Democratic slate rightward" doesn't strike me as all that great an argument.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
Nobody's being disenfranchised? Voters are being disenfranchised. It's another form to forget, another deadline to miss, another batch of people who don't get to vote. You might as well say that nobody is being disenfranchised if they're required to show a driver's licence at the polling place.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like the usual suspects butthurt that Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential primary and working backwards from there, and if long-held beliefs about voting rights get in the way, so much the worse for voting rights.
No, because a political party's candidate selection process, despite appearances, is not an election.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
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.
Like freedom of association?
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
Nobody's being disenfranchised? Voters are being disenfranchised. It's another form to forget, another deadline to miss, another batch of people who don't get to vote. You might as well say that nobody is being disenfranchised if they're required to show a driver's licence at the polling place.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like the usual suspects butthurt that Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential primary and working backwards from there, and if long-held beliefs about voting rights get in the way, so much the worse for voting rights.
No, because a political party's candidate selection process, despite appearances, is not an election.
"The right of a citizen of the United States to vote for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in a primary which is an integral part of the elective process is a right secured by the Federal Constitution" --Associate Justice Stanley Reed
Seriously, read the scotus opinion, because it's really disturbing how closely the arguments against the open primary are mirroring the ones shot down in the Allwright case.
That court ruling was based on racial discrimination.
Anyone is free to join the Democratic party regardless of race.
The court ruling was a repudiation of the idea that, and I'm quoting here, "Since the right to organize and maintain a political party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this state, it necessarily follows that every privilege essential or reasonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is likewise guaranteed, including, of course, the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership. Without the privilege of determining the policy of a political association and its membership, the right to organize such an association would be a mere mockery."
The major party primaries are not some private organization's selection process, but are in fact a major component of the American democratic system
That court ruling was based on racial discrimination.
Anyone is free to join the Democratic party regardless of race.
The court ruling was a repudiation of the idea that, and I'm quoting here, "Since the right to organize and maintain a political party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this state, it necessarily follows that every privilege essential or reasonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is likewise guaranteed, including, of course, the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership. Without the privilege of determining the policy of a political association and its membership, the right to organize such an association would be a mere mockery."
The major party primaries are not some private organization's selection process, but are in fact a major component of the American democratic system
Preventing them from being able to discriminate for certain reasons. They're still free to set limits on who may join and participate in their decisions.
In that very quote membership is still assumed.
+7
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Still haven't had anyone answer why they refuse to align with a party knowing that by doing so they get to influence that parties direction and leadership.
Other than "I don't wanna"
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You absolutely have a right to membership of political parties.
That court ruling was based on racial discrimination.
Anyone is free to join the Democratic party regardless of race.
The court ruling was a repudiation of the idea that, and I'm quoting here, "Since the right to organize and maintain a political party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this state, it necessarily follows that every privilege essential or reasonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is likewise guaranteed, including, of course, the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership. Without the privilege of determining the policy of a political association and its membership, the right to organize such an association would be a mere mockery."
The major party primaries are not some private organization's selection process, but are in fact a major component of the American democratic system
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but to me this reads as associating the right to "organize and maintain a political party" with "the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership". As in the parties have the right to determine their policies and membership.
Posts
Don't parties try to reach out to independents to get them to join, or at least see what they want?
They do have the opportunity to support such a person. There are no dues to pay, no application form, it doesn't affect your taxes, you don't even have to leave the house to do so! jmcdonald isn't doing anything to these people, it's their choice.
All their choices are shitty, yes, and things should change. But I think you got the wrong target in your sights.
Except this isn't true. You can vote for whomever you want. Shit, I'm pretty sure there's write-ins everywhere so you can even vote for people who aren't technically running in the general election. No one is being disenfranchised by the primary process because everyone gets to vote in the general. Because you can't be disenfranchised by not getting to vote in a party's primary.
See, this is the whole problem with your position. It's built on these implicit assumptions you don't even seem to notice and that aren't even correct. You are conjuring some sort of strange "right to decide a party's nominee" from out of nowhere without any support for why this would even be a thing.
You have a right to vote. (not constitutionally afaik but certainly morally and from a philosophical perspective) For whomever you choose. You do not have the unabrigable right to decide a specific party's nominee because that doesn't even make sense.
they do!
for these reasons:
and for these reasons:
but after that?
if a voter has chosen to say "no. thanks but no thanks. i am independent from your party."
then the party is correct to say "that's cool brah. let us know if that changes. until then you don't get a say in what we do."
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't agree that 'other' needs to be a joke, though. If you have reasonable expectations, third party can be quite viable; the Green were never going to take the Presidency, for example, but that wasn't the goal - the goal was to raise about $5M and get about ~5% of the vote, and grow the party from there.
Multiple parties, even in FPTP systems, have done this; start small, secure a base, build from there. If you do this in a safe territory (California for left wing politics, as an example), you don't even have to worry about vote splitting.
But it doesn't work if you literally institutionalize parties of certain sizes.
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.
They had a choice.
Obama lost independents decisively in 2012, so that's not a great argument.
But Obama won twice.
Yep. Turnout is the name of the game.
Also "Independents" are a kind of opaque grouping of Republican voters, Democratic voters and who the fuck knows.
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.
Like freedom of association?
Yes. It is.
It may not be if the states rescind it. But the current language and law as set by SCOTUS says it is.
So, Smith v. Allwright was decided incorrectly?
Background: once upon a time, the Texas Democratic Party decided they wanted to exercise their freedom of association as a private organization, to wit: they did not want black people to vote in their primaries. Blacks were of course free to vote in the general election, but the party primary was the defacto election for many local races (as it still is today).
SCOTUS ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that this was a violation of the 14th amendment.
The appeal to "freedom of association" in politics has a long history, and nearly all of it is bad.
Except this is what that case was about:
Which isn't at all applicable to discussion taking place in that quote tree.
There's a bit more to the case than the Wikipedia summary. Might I suggest reading the decision itself? The concept that America's two political parties are private organizations free to set their own rules as they see fit is false, and echoes the argument that those parties used in the past to disenfranchise minorities.
SCOTUS has also explicitly said that closed primaries (and open primaries, and pretty much any kind of primary) are legal. There are more applicable cases to point to than a clearly racist rule in Texas.
For instance, when allowing freedom of association would disenfranchise groups based on their race.
And we're nowhere near those limits when a party says that voters need to register as Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary.
Given California Democratic Party v. Jones, I agree that there is no argument to be made that closed primaries are opposable in any kind of legal way. Clearly the law is on the side of allowing the parties to close their primaries.
It's true that freedom of association does not apply along protected lines for public organizations. But it does not imply that "independent" is a protected class under the constitution.
Frequently, the party primary is the defacto election for an office. For example, if you want to vote for mayor in Baltimore, you're voting in the Dem primary, because the general election is not a competitive race.
Requiring voters to jump through extra hoops in order to vote is ordinarily considered a bad thing here, yes? It disenfranchises people who don't, or can't, fulfill them for whatever reason. Didn't we go through that with the ID laws, and unnecessarily difficult registration processes, and so on?
So, why the sudden change of heart? Why is it bad to disenfranchise people who want to vote for president, but good to disenfranchise people who want to vote for mayor?
Different deadlines though I think
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.
Disliking your choices on the ballot is not disenfranchisement.
Nobody's being disenfranchised. If the Republicans can't field a viable candidate, that's their problem, and they should rectify it.
Here's the important part, which you are glossing over and sounding a bit disingenuous. Multiple posters have said that New York's rules are too restrictive and have encouraged same day registration. These posters also say, if you want to vote in the Dem primary, you need to register Dem.
The people arguing they are disenfranchised are saying they should vote in the Dem primary even though they are registered independent [or some just don't want to be registered to a specific party, but that is functionally the same in the amount of paperwork and time, usually]. No one is being put through an extra hoop to register as a Dem, they are doing the exact same amount of hoops as it takes to register to vote, period.
So, if you want to vote, you register, and 99.9% of this board agrees such registration should be easier with less restrictions, but NOBODY says you should be able to vote without any voter registration.
If you want to vote in a primary, you register with a specific party, and that issue is being argued because number of people want to voting without registering, no matter how easy the registration.
Trying to tie this to racial discrimination rulings is conflating the current issue being debated with a completely different issue and hurting the ability to make salient points on the current topic.
this is definitely a bullshit situation, and it's a little weird that you'd look at this and be like "nah that's fine" but the city can (and probably should) set its own non-partisan primary rules if the party isn't going to fix it (which it is apparently not their job to do)
Nobody's being disenfranchised? Voters are being disenfranchised. It's another form to forget, another deadline to miss, another batch of people who don't get to vote. You might as well say that nobody is being disenfranchised if they're required to show a driver's licence at the polling place.
Frankly, this whole thing seems like the usual suspects butthurt that Bernie Sanders did well in the Dem presidential primary and working backwards from there, and if long-held beliefs about voting rights get in the way, so much the worse for voting rights.
I'm sorry, but "since the GOP can't field a credible candidate here, we should let their voters push the Democratic slate rightward" doesn't strike me as all that great an argument.
No, because a political party's candidate selection process, despite appearances, is not an election.
"The right of a citizen of the United States to vote for the nomination of candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in a primary which is an integral part of the elective process is a right secured by the Federal Constitution" --Associate Justice Stanley Reed
Seriously, read the scotus opinion, because it's really disturbing how closely the arguments against the open primary are mirroring the ones shot down in the Allwright case.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/321/649/case.html
Anyone is free to join the Democratic party regardless of race.
The court ruling was a repudiation of the idea that, and I'm quoting here, "Since the right to organize and maintain a political party is one guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of this state, it necessarily follows that every privilege essential or reasonably appropriate to the exercise of that right is likewise guaranteed, including, of course, the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership. Without the privilege of determining the policy of a political association and its membership, the right to organize such an association would be a mere mockery."
The major party primaries are not some private organization's selection process, but are in fact a major component of the American democratic system
Preventing them from being able to discriminate for certain reasons. They're still free to set limits on who may join and participate in their decisions.
In that very quote membership is still assumed.
Other than "I don't wanna"
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but to me this reads as associating the right to "organize and maintain a political party" with "the privilege of determining the policies of the party and its membership". As in the parties have the right to determine their policies and membership.